See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258764206

Elements of Physics for the 21st century

Article in Journal of Physics Conference Series · November 2013

DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/504/1/012014 · Source: arXiv

CITATIONS READS
7 2,498

1 author:

Werner A Hofer
Newcastle University
134 PUBLICATIONS 6,498 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Werner A Hofer on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Elements of physics for the 21st century
Werner A. Hofer
Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, L69 3BX Liverpool, Britain

Given the experimental precision in condensed matter physics – positions are measured with errors
of less than 0.1pm, energies with about 0.1meV, and temperature levels are below 20mK – it can be
inferred that standard quantum mechanics, with its inherent uncertainties, is a model at the end of
its natural lifetime. In this presentation I explore the elements of a future deterministic framework
based on the synthesis of wave mechanics and density functional theory at the single-electron level.
arXiv:1311.5470v1 [physics.gen-ph] 8 Nov 2013

I. INTRODUCTION

The paper describes research presented at the

EmQM 13 conference. It gives an overview of work on
quantum mechanics through about fifteen years, from the
first paper on extended electrons and photons published
in 1998 [1], to the last paper on quantum nonlocality
and Bell-type experiments in 2012 [2]. A final section
contains the first steps towards a density functional the-
ory of atomic nuclei, presented for the first time at the
conference in Vienna. It can be seen that the publica- FIG. 1: Top frames, clockwise, development of scanning probe
tions on quantum mechanics, which I published in this microscopy over the last 30 years. Au-terraces 1982[4], Au-
period, possess a gap from about 2002 to 2010. This atoms 1987[5], Atomic species 1993[6], electron-spin 1998[8],
was due to the realization on my part that I could not atomic vibrations 1999[9], spin-flip excitations 2007[11], forces
on single atoms 2008[3].
account for a simple fact: I could not explain, how the
electron changes its wavelength, when it changes its ve-
locity. I felt at the time that not understanding this fact
probably meant that I could not understand the elec- not lie in yet another mathematical framework even more
tron. Hence I only continued the development of this remote from everyday experiences than quantum me-
framework after, prompted by a student of mine, I had chanics, but in the rebuilding of a model in microphysics
found a solution which seemed to make sense. For that which is both, rooted in space and time, and which al-
I have to thank this particular student. I also have to lows for a description of single events at the atomic scale.
thank Gerhard Grössing and Jan Walleczek for organiz- This paper aims at delivering the first building blocks of
ing this great conference, and the Fetzer Franklin Fund such a comprehensive model.
for very generous financial support. That we can say today, that we do understand quan-
I think we can say today that we actually do under- tum mechanics, is to a large extent the merit of thousands
stand quantum mechanics. Maybe not in the last details, of condensed matter physicists and physical chemists,
and maybe not in its full depth, but in the broad work- who have in the last thirty years painstakingly removed
ings of the mathematical formalism, the basic physics layer after layer of complexity from their experimental
which it describes, and the deep flaws buried within its and theoretical research until they could measure and
seemingly indisputable axioms and theorems. In that, analyze single processes on individual atoms and even
we differ from Richard Feynman, who famously thought electrons. Today we can measure and simulate the forces
that nobody could actually understand it. However, this necessary to push one atom across a smooth metal surface
was said before two of the most important inventions [3], vibrations created by single electrons impinging on
for science in the twentieth century became available to molecules [9], torques on molecules created by ruptures
researchers: high-performance computers, and scanning of single molecular bonds [10], or single spin-flip excita-
probe microscopes. Computers changed the way science tions on individual atoms [11]. See Fig. 1 for the devel-
is conducted. Not only do they allow for exquisite ex- opment of experiments over the last thirty years. These
perimental control and an extensive numerical analysis experiments have pushed precision to whole new levels.
of all experiments, they also serve as a predictive tool, Today, distances can be measured with an accuracy of
if the models include all aspects of a physical system. 0.05 pm [12], which is about 1/4000th of an atomic di-
This, in turn, means that successful theory and successful ameter, and energies with a precision of 0.1meV, which
quantitative predictions, based on local quantities, make is about 1/20000th of the energy of a chemical bond [11].
it increasingly implausible, that processes exist, which Given these successes and this accuracy, of which physi-
are operating outside space and time. Then, the solu- cists could only dream at the time of Einstein, Heisen-
tion to the often paradoxical theoretical predictions and berg, Schrödinger, or Dirac, it would be intellectually
sometimes incomprehensible experimental outcomes can- deeply unsatisfying if we were today still limited to the
 2

somewhat crude theoretical framework of standard quan- and by association the whole framework of operator me-
tum mechanics, developed at the beginning of the last chanics, becomes untenable, because it is contradicted by
century. experiments. It is precisely this contradiction, which has
The lesson I have learned from my work as condensed been claimed by theoretical physicists to be impossible.
matter theorist, trying to make sense of results my exper- It also has one consequence, which can be seen as the one
imental colleagues threw at me is this: a physical process principle of the following:
has to be thoroughly understood before a suitable theo-
retical model can be constructed. It is probably one of • The density of electron charge is a real physical
the more self-defeating features of Physics in the 20th quantity.
century that new developments mostly took the oppo- The density of electron charge has the same ontological
site route: equations came first, processes and physical status as electromagnetic fields or macroscopic mass or
effects a distant second. This, I think, is about to change charge distributions. The only difference, and the ori-
again in the 21st century, as mathematical guidance with- gin of many of the complications arising in atomic scale
out physical understanding has led Physics thoroughly physics is that the density not only interacts with exter-
astray. nal energy sources, but it also interacts with an electron’s
internal spin density.
The theoretical framework combines two separate
II. THE MAIN PROBLEM
models. Both of them are due to physicists born in Vi-
enna, so the location of a workshop on emergent quantum
The main problem faced by theorists today is the pre- mechanics, from my personal perspective, could not have
cision of experiments at the atomic scale, because it ex- been better chosen. The first of these physicists is Erwin
ceeds by far the limit encoded in the uncertainty rela- Schrödinger, born in Vienna in 1887, the second one is
tions. This has been the subject of debate for some time Walter Kohn, born in Vienna in 1923. The fundamental
now, following the publication of Ozawa’s paper in 1988 statements, underlying these two separate models, are
[13], which demonstrated that the limit can be broken the following:
by certain measurements. An even larger violation can
be observed in measurements of scanning probe instru- • A system is fully described by its wavefunction
ments [14]. If the instrument measures, via its tunneling (Schrödinger).
current, the variation of the electron density across a sur-
face, then a statistical analysis of such a measurement is • A system is fully described by its density of electron
straightforward. In the conventional model electrons are charge (Kohn).
assumed to be point particles. The same assumption is I have been asked, at this workshop, whether the viola-
made in quantum mechanics, when the formalism is in- tion of the uncertainty relations could be accounted for
troduced via Hamiltonian mechanics and Poisson brack- by a reduced limit of the constant, e.g. somewhat smaller
ets. It is also the conventional wisdom in high energy than h̄/2, a solution which was proposed by Ozawa for
collision experiments, where one finds that the radius of the violations detected in the free-mass measurements
the electron should be less than 10−18 m. If this is cor- [13]. While this seems, at least for the time being, a
rect, then the density is a statistical quantity derived possible solution, it disregards the ultimate origin of the
from the probability of a point-like electron to be found
uncertainty relations. They are based, conceptually, on
at a certain location. This has two consequences: the assumption that electrons are point particles (this is
1. A measurement of a certain distance with a certain the link to classical mechanics and Poisson brackets), and
precision for a particular point on the surface can the obligation to account for wave properties of electrons.
only be distinguished from the measurement at a If wave properties are real, a view taken in the current
neighboring point if the standard deviation is lower framework, then there will be no theoretical limit to the
than a certain value. precision in their description. A remedy along the lines
sketched above then becomes untenable.
2. A certain energy limit allows only a certain lower
limit for the standard deviation in these measure-
ments. III. WAVEFUNCTIONS AND CHARGE
One can now show quite easily [14] that the standard de- DENSITY
viation at realistic energy limits (in case of a silver surface
the band energy) is about two orders of magnitude larger If the density of electron charge is a real physical
than the possible value for state-of-the-art measurements property, then a common framework must be developed,
today. The allowed limit for the standard deviation in which allows to map the density onto wavefunctions in
the experiments is about 3pm, while the standard devi- the Schrödinger theory. Wavefunctions famously do not
ation from the band energy limit is about 300pm. The have physical reality in the conventional model. However,
consequence for the standard framework of quantum me- their square does, according to the Born rule. Here, we
chanics is quite devastating: the uncertainty principle, want to demonstrate that this is correct to some extent
 3

also within the new model, but with one important limi- by:
tation: even though wavefunctions do not have the same   
reality as mass or spin densities, they can be assembled ρ0 4π
ρ(z, t) = 1 + cos z − 4πνt (2)
from these two - physically real - properties. 2 λ

where ρ0 is the inertial mass density of the electron, and λ

and ν depend on the momentum and frequency according
A. Single electrons to the de Broglie and Planck rules. At zero frequency in-
finite wavelength, describing an electron at rest, the mass
1. Density and energy density is equal to the inertial mass density. However, if
the electron moves, then the density is periodic in z and
It has been recognized by some of the greatest physi- t. This requires the existence of an additional energy
cists in the 20th century, among them Albert Einstein, reservoir to account for the variation in kinetic energy
that electrons play a key role in modern physics. Indeed, density. We next introduce the spin density as the geo-
one could argue that all of physical sciences at the atomic metric product of two field vectors, E and H, which are
and molecular level, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology is perpendicular to the direction of motion. These fields
concerned with only one topic: the behavior and proper- are:
ties of electrons. This is also reflected in the celebrated 
2π

theorem of Walter Kohn: all properties of a physical sys- E(z, t) = e1 E0 sin z − 2πνt
λ
tem, composed of atoms, are defined once the distribu-  
tion of electron charge within the system is determined 2π
H(z, t) = e2 H0 sin z − 2πνt (3)
[15]. The solution to the problem of electron density dis- λ
tribution is formulated in density functional theory in a
Schrödinger-type equation. The spin density is, in this Spin, in this picture, is the geometric product of the two
framework, denoted as an isotropic spin-up or spin-down vector components. It is thus a chiral (and for the free
component of the total charge density, the energy related electron imaginary) field vector, which is either parallel
to this spin-density is computed with the help of Pauli- or anti-parallel to the direction of motion. The total
type equations. energy density is constant and equal to the inertial energy
density if we impose a condition on the spin amplitude
However, the framework does not provide physical in-
[16]:
sights into either spin-densities at the single electron
level, or how spin-densities will change in external mag- 1

2π

2
netic fields. What was missing, so far, was a clear connec- Ekin (z, t) = ρ0 vel cos2 z − 2πνt
2 λ
tion between the density of electron charge, on the one    
hand, and the spin density on the other hand. A connec- 1 1 2π
Espin (z, t) = ǫ0 E02 + µ0 H02 sin2 z − 2πνt
tion, which should explain the physical origins of wave- 2 2 λ
functions in the standard model. It should also explain,
 
1 1 1
how density distributions may change as a consequence ǫ0 E02 + µ0 H02 =: ρ0 vel 2
(4)
2 2 2
of changes to the electron velocity, thus underpinning the
1 2
wave properties of electrons, found in all experiments. ⇒ Etot = Ekin (z, t) + Espin (z, t) = ρ0 vel
It turns out to be surprisingly simple to construct such 2
a model. Once it is accepted that electrons must be ex- It should be noted that not only the frequency, but also
tended, the wave features must be part of the density the intensity of the spin component depends on the veloc-
distributions of free electrons themselves. In this case ity of the electron. This is in marked contrast to classical
the density of charge must also be wavelike. This poses a electrodynamics, where the energy of a field only depends
problem for both, standard quantum theory and density on the intensity but not on the frequency. Here, it is a
functional theory, because in both cases free electrons are necessary consequence of the principle that the electron
described by plane waves: density is a real physical variable and it establishes a
link between the quantum behavior of electrons and the
1 quantum behavior of electromagnetic fields.
ψ(r) = √ exp (ikr) (1)
V This behavior gives a much more precise explanation
for the validity of Planck’s derivation of black body radi-
In this case the Born rule gives a constant value for ation. If every electromagnetic field, due to emission or
the probability density, for the mass density and for the absorption of energy by electrons, must follow the same
charge density: free electrons, then, do not have any dis- characteristic, then every energy exchange must also be
tinctive property related to their velocity. But the - now proportional to the frequency of the field. Then Planck’s
physically real - wave properties of mass and spin densi- assumption, that E = hν is nothing but a statement of
ties can be recovered by first assigning a wave-like behav- this fact. However, that also the intensity follows the
ior to the density of electron mass moving in z-direction same rule, has been unknown so far. In our view this
 4

could be the fundamental principle for a general frame- In the conventional framework the dependency of the
work of a non-relativistic quantum electrodynamics to be wavefunction and the Schrödinger equation on external
developed in the future. scalar or vector potentials is usually justified with ar-
It should also be noted that the electrostatic repulsion guments from classical mechanics and energy conserva-
of such an extended electron has to be accounted for, tion. In our approach, the justification is the changed
as it is in density functional theory (DFT), by a nega- frequency and wavevector of electrons if they are subject
tive cohesive energy of the electron of -8.16eV. In DFT to external fields. If we assume that the frequency of
this energy component is known as the self-interaction the electron varies from the value inferred from the de
correction. Broglie and Planck relations:
∂ψS h̄2 2 p2
ih̄ = hνψ 6= − ∇ ψS = ψS , (10)
2. Wavefunctions ∂t 2m 2m
then the difference, which is observed in the photoelectric
It is straightforward to assemble wavefunctions from effect, can be accounted for by an additional term in
mass and spin density components, following this route. the equation which is linear with the measured scalar
Wavefunctions are in our framework multivectors con- potential. Then:
taining the even elements of geometric algebra in three
dimensional space [17]. The even elements are real num- ∂ψS h̄2 2
ih̄ =− ∇ ψS + V ψS (11)
bers and bivectors (product of two vectors), the 4π sym- ∂t 2m
metry, which is the basis of Fermi statistics in the conven- The second situation, where this can be the case, ob-
tional framework, follows from the symmetry properties served for example in Aharonov-Bohm effects, is when
of multivectors under rotations in space. The real part the wavelength does not comply with the wavelength in-
ψm of a general wavefunction can be written as a scalar ferred from the frequency and the Planck and de Broglie
part, equal to the square root of the number density: relations. In this case one can account for the observation

2π
 by including the vector potential in the differential term
1/2 1/2
ψm = ρ = ρ0 cos z − 2πνt (5) of the equation to arrive at the general equation [16]:
λ
∂ψS 1
In geometric algebra, this is the scalar component of a ih̄ = (ih̄∇ − eA)2 ψS + V ψS (12)
∂t 2m
general multivector. The bivector component ψs is the
square root of the spin component, times the unit vec- The important difference, as will be seen presently, is that
tor in the direction of electron propagation, times the all these effects occur at a local level and can therefore
imaginary unit. It is thus: be analyzed locally: a philosophy, which also forms the
  core of the local density approximation in DFT.
1/2 1/2 2π
ψs = ie3 S = ie3 S0 sin z − 2πνt (6)
λ
B. Many-electron systems
The scalar component and the bivector component for
an electron are equal to the inertial number density: In a many-electron system motion of electrons is cor-
related throughout the system and mediated by crystal
ρ0 = S 0 ⇒ ρ + S = ρ0 = constant (7)
fields within the material. If the spin component in gen-
The same result can be reached by applying the Born eral is a bivector, and if it is subject to interactions with
rule, for the wavefunction defined as: other electrons in the system, then the general, scalar
Schrödinger equation will not describe the whole physics
ψ = ρ1/2 + ie3 S 1/2 ψ † = ρ1/2 − ie3 S 1/2 (8) of the system. Simply accounting for all interactions by
†
ψ ψ = ρ + S = ρ0 = constant a scalar effective potential vef f would recover the Kohn-
Sham equations of DFT, if exchange and correlation were
The difference to the conventional formulation is that the included. It would do so, however, for both, density com-
wavefunction is a multivector, not a complex scalar. It ponents and spin components, since:
also makes the spin component a chiral vector, which is
h̄2 2
  
important for the understanding of spin measurements. − ∇ + vef f ρ1/2 + ie3 S 1/2 =
Formally, we can recover the standard equations of 2m
 
wave mechanics, if we define the Schrödinger wavefunc- = µ ρ1/2 + ie3 S 1/2
tion as a complex scalar, retaining the direction of the
spin component as a hidden variable. The wavefunction h̄2 2
 
for a free electron then reads: − ∇ + vef f − µ ρ1/2 = 0 (13)
2m
h̄2 2
    
1/2 1/2 1/2 2π
ψS = ρ + iS = ρ0 exp i z − 2πνt (9) − ∇ + vef f − µ S 1/2 = 0
λ 2m
 5

In this case the solutions of the equation, single Kohn- spin directions are inward and outward. The same so-
Sham states, would exist throughout the system and not lution will apply to all s-like charge distributions, also,
lend themselves to a local analysis of physical events. therefore, to the valence electron of silver (see the discus-
More importantly, such a model would not include an in- sion of Stern-Gerlach experiments below).
dependent spin component in the theoretical description. The great advantage of the formulation is the simplic-
We therefore propose a different framework for a many ity and the reduced number of variables. Both, ρ and
electron system, which scales linearly with the number S are scalar variables. In addition, we have to find the
of electrons and remains local. Such a model can be directions of the unit vectors, es = ev for every point of
achieved by including a bivector potential into a gener- the system. This reduces the time independent problem
alized Schrödinger equation in the following way: to a problem of finding five scalar components in real
space. Compared to the standard formulation of many-
h̄2 2
 
body physics, where one has to find a wavefunction of

− ∇ + vef f + iev vb ρ1/2 + ies S 1/2
2m 3N variables, where N is the number of electrons, or to
  standard DFT, which scales cubic with N , the approach
= µ ρ1/2 + ies S 1/2 (14) is much simpler.
However, the effective potential vef f and the bivector
where we have changed the spin component to describe potential vb in this model are generally not known and
a general spin direction es . The geometric product of have to be determined for every system. In standard
two vectors is the sum of a real scalar and an imaginary DFT this is done by calculating the exchange-correlation
vector: functional for simpler systems, or for very small systems
with high-precision methods. The same route will have
ev es = ev · es − iev × es (15)
to be taken for this new model of many-body physics.
The equation of motion for a general many-electron sys- Judging from the development of standard DFT this pro-
tem then reads: cess will probably take at least ten years of development
before reliable methods can be routinely used in simula-
h̄2 2 tions. But we think, that this method and this approach
 
− ∇ + vef f − µ ρ1/2 = ev · es vb S 1/2 to many-body physics will also be an element of physics
2m
in the 21st century.
h̄2 2
 
− ∇ + vef f − µ es S 1/2 + ev vb ρ1/2 =
2m
= −ev × es vb S 1/2 (16) IV. EXPERIMENTS

If ev = 0, we recover Eq. (13). As inspection shows, the As stated in the introduction, we consider the fact that
coupled equations only have a solution if the direction quantum mechanics does not allow for a detailed analysis
of the bivector potential is equal to the direction of spin of single events a major drawback of the theory. How-
(ev = es ), which reduces the problem to: ever, a theoretically more advanced model will have to
 2  pass the test that it can actually deliver these insights.
h̄   
− ∇2 + vef f − µ ρ1/2 − S 1/2 = vb ρ1/2 + S 1/2 This value statement, i.e. that a theoretical framework is
2m superior not because it obtains higher precision in the nu-
(17)merical predictions, but it is superior because it provides
causal insight into physical processes, is somewhat alien
With the transformation ρ̃1/2 = ρ1/2 −S 1/2 and for vb = 0 to the current debate about quantum mechanics. The
this equation is identical to the Levy-Perdew-Sahni equa- tacit agreement seems to be that no theory can provide
tion derived for orbital free DFT in the 1980s [18]. such an insight. This is one of the fundamental assump-
 2  tions of the Copenhagen school. There, it is stated that
h̄ no theoretical model can be more than a coherent frame-
− ∇2 + vef f − µ ρ̃1/2 = 0 (18)
2m work for obtaining numbers in experimental trials. But
we do actually not know that this is true, because the
One can reduce the expression to the conventional assumption that it is true contains an assumption about
Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom by setting reality. The assumption that reality cannot in principle
vef f = vn , the Coulomb potential of the central nucleus. be subjected to an analysis in terms of cause and effect
The equation then has two groundstate solutions, both in physical processes. The argument thus is not even
radially symmetric: logically consistent with its own believe system.
C C Here, we want to show that the analysis of single events
ρ1/2 = ± e−αr S 1/2 = ± e−αr (19) in terms of cause and effect is possible also at the atomic
2 2
scale. This, we think, demonstrates more than anything
where C is a constant, and α is the inverse Bohr radius. else the problems of the standard framework. To an un-
The vector es is the radial unit vector er and the two biased observer it appears sometimes as if the mathe-
 6

matical tools had, over the last century, acquired a life Here we find the reason for the change of wavelength in
of their own, so that they are seen as a separate reality, an acceleration process: the spin component increases in
which exists independently of space and time. Hilbert amplitude, and as gradually more energy is shifted into
space seems such a concept, and the inability of the stan- this component the wavelength becomes shorter and the
dard framework to actually locate a trajectory in space frequency increases. A process, which so far has remained
is then seen as proof of the reality of infinitely many tra- buried underneath the mathematical formalism and is
jectories in Hilbert space. This is a logical fallacy, as we now open to analysis.
shall demonstrate by an analysis of crucial experiments
in the following.
B. Stern-Gerlach experiments

A. Acceleration of electrons An inhomogeneous magnetic field leads to deflection of

atoms, if they possess a magnetic moment. This effect
We are quite used to the fact that the wavelength of was used, in the ground breaking experiments on silver
an electron is inverse proportional to its momentum. It by Gerlach and Stern in 1922 [20], to demonstrate that
is thus also quite normal to write a wavefunction of a the classically expected result, i.e. a statistical distribu-
particular free electron, which contains a variation of its tion around a central impact, is not in line with exper-
amplitude according to this momentum. However, when imental outcomes. Moreover, the assumption that the
an electron is accelerated, then standard theory is refer- orbital moment would cause the deflection was also un-
ring us to the Ehrenfest theorem [19]. Incidentally, also tenable, because in this case one would observe an odd
Paul Ehrenfest was born in Vienna, in 1880. But his the- number of impact locations and not, as in the actual ex-
orem only describes the change of an expectation value periments, exactly two. Within the new model the effect
in a system. It does not allow us to understand, how is easy to understand. Above, we derived the solution
the wavefunction changes its wavelength, or how the fre- for the electron mass and spin density of a hydrogen-like
quency of the wave increases when it interacts with an atom. Assuming that the valence electron of silver can
accelerating potential. Within the present model, this is be described in a similar model, we find two different spin
exactly described at the local level by a new equation, directions: one, parallel to the radial vector and directed
which we call the local Ehrenfest theorem. Its mathe- outward, the other, parallel to the radial vector and di-
matical expression is: rected inward (see Fig. 2, left images). The induced spin
densities Si (see Fig. 2, centre) as the atoms enter the
dv field, are due to the changes of the spin orientation in
f = −∇φ = ρ0 (20)
dt a time-dependent magnetic field, which comply with a
Landau-Lifshitz like equation [16]:
It states that the force (density) at a particular point of
the electron is exactly equal to the gradient of an external deS

dB

potential φ, and that it is described by its classical formu- S = eS · S = constant · eS × v × (25)
dt dt
lation, the acceleration of its inertial mass. The reason
that it is described by this equation is that the number Then the induced spin densities will lead to a precession
density or the mass density (here we use the two notions around the magnetic field B in two directions, which will
interchangeable) is complemented by the spin density to give rise to induced magnetic moments parallel, or anti
yield a constant: parallel to the field. In an inhomogeneous field the force
of deflection is then directed either parallel or antiparallel
ρ + S = ρ0 = constant (21) to the field gradient, leading to two deflection spots on
the screen, exactly as seen in the experiments (Fig. 2,
The same applies to the square of the wavefunction,
right). While therefore in the standard model, which
which is:
assumes that:
ψ ∗ ψ = ρ + S = ρ0 = constant (22) 1. Spin is isotropic.
The time differential of momentum density at a particu- 2. A measurement breaks the symmetry of the spin.
lar point is therefore:
no process exists, which could actually explain the sym-
d dv metry breaking of the initially isotropic spin, the situa-
(mψ ∗ ψv) = m (ψ ∗ ψ) (23)
dt dt tion is completely different in the new model. Here the
process is described by:
However, what is hidden in the classical expression is
the shift of energy from the mass component to the spin 1. Spin is isotropic.
component as the electron accelerates:
2. The measurement induces spins aligned with the
Ṡ = −ρ̇ (24) magnetic field.
 7

∆z

∆z FIG. 3: Double slit interferometry, Feynman path integrals.

A single particle is assumed to split into virtual particles prior
S0 Si to the interferometer. After the interferometer all particles
recombine, the acquired phases along their path determining
x the interference amplitude. A single particle is detected at
the detector screen.
B
Thermal
broadening

dH Single Single Discrete lateral Discrete Single Single Discrete lateral Continuous
dz wavelets wavelets momenta pattern wavelets wavelets momenta pattern

FIG. 4: Double slit interferometry, real picture. Left: A sin-

FIG. 2: Spin measurement of a hydrogen-like atom. Left: the gle particle passing through an opening of the interferome-
spin densities S0 are parallel to the radial vector. Center: the ter acquires a discrete lateral momentum due to interactions
direction of the induced spin densities Si is parallel or antipar- with the discrete interaction spectrum of atomic scale sys-
allel to the magnetic field. Right: due to the inhomogeneous tems. The interference pattern is a series of sharp impact
field the atoms are deflected upward or downward. regions. Right: due to the thermal energy of the slit environ-
ment and interactions with molecules in air the impact regions
broaden with a Gaussian until they resemble the wave-like in-
terference pattern in an optical interferometer.
3. The induced spins lead to positive or negative de-
flections in a field gradient.
The description is fully deterministic, since the initial with the help of Feynman path integrals. The process de-
direction of spin densities determines the experimental scribed in this mathematical framework is shown in Fig.
outcome. Statistics only enter the picture, if the initial 3. A single particle, upon entering the vicinity of the
spin densities are unknown, which they are in practice. interferometer, is assumed to split into a number of vir-
Again, we see that the new model actually describes pro- tual particles. Each virtual particle passes exactly one
cesses at the level of single events, and that probabilities opening of the interferometer, where it acquires a char-
arise due to unknown initial conditions, but that they are acteristic phase. After the interferometer, all particles
not fundamental to a comprehensive model. are again recombined interfering in a particular way due
to their acquired phases. A single impact is observed on
the detector screen.
C. Interference experiments It is quite clear, and is conceded also in the standard
framework, that this has nothing to do with real events.
Double slit experiments are notoriously difficult to un- However, this insight does not solve the problem, what
derstand in the framework of standard quantum mechan- actually happens so that single entities (electrons or pho-
ics. So difficult, in fact, that Richard Feynman called tons), will acquire certain deflections in an interferome-
them ”a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely im- ter, and why these deflections have an uncanny resem-
possible, to explain in any classical way, and which has blance to interference patterns of light in an interferom-
in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it con- eter. In our view, this problem could actually have been
tains the only mystery” [21]. The work done recently, solved a long time ago by Duane [24]; a solution which
aimed at shedding light on this mystery, is already quite was later taken up by Lande [25], and which contains no
convincing: whether it is with Bohm-type trajectories, mystery at all. The key observation for their model is
fluctuating fields [22], or whether it is by establishing that every atomic scale system has a discrete interaction
the trajectories with weak measurements [23], the re- spectrum. This means that every interaction of such a
sult always seems to be that one particle passes through system with a single photon or electron can only cause ob-
one particular opening. Mathematically, the interference servable changes in the particle’s dynamics, if a discrete
phenomena in the standard framework are calculated e.g. amount of energy is exchanged, typically corresponding
 8

to the excitation of single lattice vibrations. Given this type of experiments so far are polarizable, that is they
fact, it is impossible that the particle acquires a contin- can possess a dipole moment. No control experiments
uous lateral momentum. Consequently, it also cannot with molecules which are not polarizable have been per-
be detected in intermediate regions, unless its trajectory formed to date. After the grating it is observed that the
is additionally determined by thermal broadening of the molecules do not impinge on the screen in a continuous
actual interaction. fashion, but that their impact count shows a variation,
This model of the process can be experimentally ver- which is taken as proof that the molecules possess a de
ified. The key to such a verification is the separation of Broglie wavelength and interfere as coherent waves.
the individual effects changing the particle’s trajectory This is fundamentally wrong on several counts. First,
(see Fig. 4). In a liquid helium environment the thermal it is well known that the electronic density is fully char-
motion of atoms is frozen. In addition, in an ultrahigh acterizing a many-electron system. A de Broglie wave-
vacuum environment, no interactions with molecules are length, which does make sense for free electrons, does not
possible. In a low temperature interferometer the im- exist in such a structure. Second, it is also well known
pacts will be sharply defined images of the particle beam that internal degrees of freedom of molecular systems
deflected by interactions with the atomic environment, start mixing after very short timescales, in the range of
while a gradual increase of the temperature of the in- femtoseconds. That a molecule is heated with a laser -
terferometer should lead to a gradual broadening of the most likely leading to excitation of electronic transitions
impact regions. This broadening, moreover, should re- - and then spends microseconds preserving a fictitious
flect the thermal energy range of the slit environment. state vector related to its translational motion, while
Performing such a controlled experiment seems entirely shaking rapidly due to vibrational excitations is not cred-
feasible today, and in our view it will establish that in- ible. Third, it is even less credible that such a molecule,
deed the interaction with the atomic environment, and with its time dependent dipole moment, will not induce
not some fictitious splitting and recombination process is dipole moments in the slit itself, which then interact with
at the bottom of this - hundred years old - mystery. the molecule’s dipole to alter its trajectory. And fourth,
the fictitious state vector of this molecule, which does
not exist, is supposed to interfere with another fictitious
1. Interference of large molecules state vector which went through a different slit, a pro-
cess, which is completely impossible, unless one assumes
It has been claimed, in a number of high-impact pub- that the molecule, during its trajectory, will split into
lications since 1999, that large molecules can be made several individual molecules. How this could be possible,
to interfere on gold gratings, and that these experiments given that such a creation of additional molecules violates
show both, the coherence of the molecules over macro- the energy principle by several MeV, has never been ex-
scopic trajectories (range of cm), and that the ”wave- plained and can safely be regarded as pure fiction. In
length” of these molecules is equal to the de Broglie summary, the model is wrong in so many ways, that one
wavelength of their inertial mass. This is highly naive is alarmed by the lack of knowledge in basic Chemistry
and manifestly incorrect, as we show in the following. and solid state Physics of its authors and, presumably,
As the exemplar of the misguided interpretations the journal’s editors.
we use in the following the first experiments on C60 So how does it really work? Most likely in the way
molecules, which were published in the journal Nature sketched in the previous section. A polarizable molecule
[26]. Due to the interest of the Chemistry community is excited by laser light so that most of its low lying vi-
in these molecules, their properties have been extremely brational excitations are activated. This molecule enters
well researched in the past. Theorists routinely calcu- the interferometer with a time-dependent dipole moment
late their electronic properties, their phonon spectrum, in lateral direction. As the molecule interacts with the
and their light absorption and emission spectrum. They atomic environment of the interferometer, it induces elec-
have been adsorbed on surfaces and their charge density tric dipoles into the slit system. These time-dependent
distribution has been compared to the results of STM ex- dipole moments interact with the molecular dipole mo-
periments, which verified the theoretical results in great ments until the molecule has passed the interferometer.
detail. As every Chemist will know, phonon or vibra- Due to the interaction the molecules acquire a distinct
tional modes of organic molecules are varied and range lateral momentum. The momentum leads to a deflec-
from a few meV (breathing modes, torsion) to a few hun- tion on the detector screen. The deflection is interpreted
dred meV (stretch modes). This particular molecule con- as the result of a de Broglie wave, because the distance
tains 60 carbon atoms, it thus has 180 modes of vibration from the point of no deflection to the point of impact is
which cover the whole energy range. inverse proportional to the velocity of the molecule. Why
Experiments are performed in such a way that the is it inverse proportional to the velocity of the molecule?
molecules are heated with laser light, reaching velocities Because the time constant of the interaction duration
of a few hundred meters per second, and then passed depends on the time the molecule spent in the slit envi-
through a grating with a width of about 50 nm, and ronment of constant depth. Then a faster molecule will
a depth of 100 nm. All molecules presented in this spend less time, therefore acquire less lateral momentum,
 9

therefore end up closer to the point of no deflection. This, B -λ 0 λ A

again. has nothing to do with a de Broglie wave, and z
all to do with the constant distance from the entry to
exit of the interferometer (100nm). This whole scenario Rotator 2 Rotator 1
should be relatively easy to simulate with modern elec-
tronic structure methods. One could also try to pin down
the actual effect by using non-polarizable molecules. The
Filter 2 Photon 2 Source Photon 1 Filter 1
prediction here is that no periodic variation on the screen
will be observed in this case.
FIG. 5: Aspect-type experiment. Two photons are emitted
from a common source with an initial unknown polarization
angle ϕ0 . Their polarization is then measured at points A
D. Aspect-type experiments and B. (From Ref. [2]).

These experiments have been puzzling physicists for

at least thirty years. The height of the confusion was
probably reached with Aspect’s review paper in the jour- Depending on how we define our threshold, which is a
nal Nature in 1999, where he stated: ”The violation of function of the measurement equipment, an impact at
Bell’s inequality, with strict relativistic separation be- a certain angle of measurement ϕA and a certain initial
tween the chosen measurements, means that it is impos- angle ϕ0 is fully determined by the knowledge of these
sible to maintain the image a la Einstein where corre- two angles. The single event is thus fully accounted for.
lations are explained by common properties determined However, in the actual experiments the angle ϕ0 is un-
at the common source and subsequently carried along by known, and it is randomly distributed over the whole
each photon. We must conclude that an entangled EPR interval [0,2π]. A set of N experiments will thus lead to
photon pair is a non-separable object; that is, it is impos- a random value for the probability, covering the whole
sible to assign individual local properties (local physical interval [0,1]. The single measurement is thus random.
reality) to each photon. In some sense, both photons The same is true for a measurement at point −B. Also
keep in contact through space and time” [27]. here the polarization measurement is described by a ro-
We shall show in the following that exactly such a tation, with a different and fully independent angle ϕB .
model a la Einstein can explain all experimental data The probability of detection is, along the same lines:
and that the confusion arises from a fundamental techni- 2
p[R(B)] = [ℜ(R(B))] = cos2 (ϕB + ϕ0 ) (28)
cal error in Bell’s derivations. To explain the experiments
in detail at the single photon level, let us start with set- Also in this case the single event is fully accounted for
ting up a system composed of a source of photons at the if the initial angle ϕ0 and the angle of polarization ϕB
point z = 0, and two polarization measurements at ar- are known. Again, a set of N experiments will lead to
bitrary points z = A and z = −B. We assume that the a random value for the probability, covering the whole
polarization measurements contain rotations in the plane interval [0,1].
parallel to z. We also assume that the two photons are Naively, one could now assume that the correlation
emitted from the source with an arbitrary angle of polar- probability is the product of the two measurement prob-
ization ϕ0 . It is irrelevant for the following, whether the abilities at points A and −B, respectively. This is exactly
field vectors of the two photons rotate during propaga- what Bell assumed in the derivation of his inequalities,
tion. If they do, this will show up only as an additional when he wrote [28]:
angle ∆ between their polarization measurements at A Z
or −B. The setup of the experiment is shown in Figure P (a, b) = dλρ(λ)A(a, λ)B(b, λ) (29)
5. A single measurement at A consists of two separate
processes: First, the polarization angle is altered by an
angle ϕA . Mathematically, this is a rotation in three di- Here, λ has the same meaning as the initial angle ϕ0 ,
mensional space and in the plane perpendicular to the and the crucial error lies in the assumption that the cor-
direction of motion, which can be described by the ge- relation probability is the product of individual probabil-
ometric product of a rotator in this plane (a geometric ities. This is manifestly incorrect, because it disregards
product) ϕA e1 e2 acting on the photon’s field vector S, the mathematical properties of rotations. Two separate
which is parallel to e3 . To take care of normalization, we rotations at A and −B have to be accounted for by a
describe such a rotation as: product of individual rotations, thus:

R(A) = exp [(ϕA + ϕ0 ) e1 e2 (e3 )] = ei(ϕA +ϕ0 ) (26) R(A) · R(B) = exp [(ϕA + ϕ0 ) e1 e2 (e3 )]
· exp [(−ϕB − ϕ0 ) e1 e2 (e3 )]
Then, the photon is detected, if the probability p which
depends on the angle of rotation and the initial angle of = exp [i (ϕA − ϕB )] (30)
polarization, is larger than a certain threshold:
It is impossible, from these two rotations, to derive a
2
p[R(A)] = [ℜ(R(A))] = cos2 (ϕA + ϕ0 ) (27) probability which is the product of two positive numbers.
 10

Furthermore, the hidden variable ϕ0 , which is present in

the probability of individual polarization measurements,
is canceled out in the correlation derived from two sep-
arate rotations. The correct form of the probability for
the correlation derived from the two rotations will be:
2
p[R(A), R(B)] = [ℜ (R(A) · R(B))] = cos2 (ϕA − ϕB )
(31)
These probabilities are equal to the correlation probabil-
ities derived in the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt formal-
+
ism [29]: - 1.38 fm
++ −− 2
C = C = cos (ϕA − ϕB )
+−
C = C −+
= 1 − cos2 (ϕA − ϕB ) (32)

They lead to the standard expectation values measured

in Aspect-type experiments: FIG. 6: Neutron scattering experiments by Littauer et al.
[30]. A neutron consists of a positive core and a negative
E (ϕA , ϕB ) = cos [2 (ϕA − ϕB )] (33) shell. The radius of the neutron is about 1.38fm.

And they violate the Bell inequalities in the exact same

way as found in the experiments:
We also know, from scattering experiments (see Fig. 6),
S (ϕA , ϕ′A , ϕB , ϕ′B ) = E(ϕA , ϕB ) − E(ϕA , ϕ′B ) + (34) that a neutron contains a core of positive charge, which
√ one could tentatively call the ”proton” and a shell of
+ E(ϕ′A , ϕB ) + E(ϕ′A , ϕ′B ) =2 2 negative charge, which one could to first instance iden-
tify as the ”electron”. If the electron exists in such a
if ϕA = 0, ϕ′A = 45, ϕB = 22.5, ϕ′B = 67.5. To repeat the high density phase, then one could also seek its eigen-
findings: a model based on polarizations and rotations states with the help of a Schrödinger equation adapted
in space recovers all experimental results. It allows for to the much smaller lengthscales and much higher energy
a cause-effect description of every single measurement. scales. However, for such an assumption to make sense it
It also violates the Bell inequalities. Not, because it is first has to be determined, where the additional mass of
a non-local model, but because Bell made a fundamen- the neutron compared to isolated protons and electrons
tal error in the derivation of his inequalities. It is thus, comes from. Here, it has to be remembered that the ra-
paraphrasing Aspect’s words, not a proof that a model a dius of a neutron is much smaller than the radius of a
la Einstein is impossible, but rather a proof that many hydrogen atom. Therefore, the electrostatic field of an
quantum theorists do not understand geometry. electron outside hydrogen has a very low energy of about
11 eV, while this field has a large energy of close to 1
MeV for an electron with a radius of 1.38 fm:
V. TOWARDS A DENSITY MODEL OF
ATOMIC NUCLEI 1 re 1 e2
Z
W0e = ǫ0 |E|2 dV = ≈ 11eV
2 ∞ 4πǫ0 re
A. Electrons and neutrons
1 e2
Wne = ≈ 1040keV (36)
4πǫ0 rn
At the end of this presentation I would like to report on
some work in progress. It is quite natural, if one consid- Here, one finds that the electrostatic energy alone, con-
ers the electron an extended particle, to ask, what shape sidering mass equivalents, can account for the excess
and form it might have apart from the atomic environ- mass. Next, it is necessary to analyze nuclear units. We
ment. We know from DFT that its density, consequently know from atomic physics that atomic units are defined
its shape, will depend on the potential environment. Af- from fundamental constants and determine the solution
ter all, we find much higher densities of electron charge of the hydrogen problem with the Schrödinger equation.
in heavier atoms with a higher number of central charges Let me just remind the reader that an exponentially de-
than we find in hydrogen. So one may also ask, in what 1/2
caying wavefunction ψ(r) = ρ0 exp(−αr) leads to the
shape and form an electron exists, for example, in a neu- following characteristic equation and the solution for α:
tron. We know that the neutron decays outside an atomic
nucleus in about 880 seconds to a proton and an electron,  2 2
h̄ α 2h̄2 α e2

with an excess energy of 785 keV, which is mostly con- − + − ψ(r) = Eψ(r)
2m 2mr 4πǫ0 r
verted into X-ray radiation.
2h̄2 α e2 me2
0 + − − =0 → α= (37)
n → p + e + 785keV (35) 2mr 4πǫ0 r 4πǫ0 h̄2
 11

If a similar solution exists for the neutron, then the de-

cay constant must be different. We account for this hy-
pothesis by rescaling the Planck constant in a nuclear
environment so that:
1.89 × 10−10 m−1 EH
h̄n = xh̄ αn = En =
x2 x2
(38)
The Schrödinger equation in a nuclear environment then
reads:
 
1 2 1
− ∇ − ψn (r) = En ψn (r) (39)
2 r FIG. 7: Closed shells of atomic nuclei for up to 136 protons.
The shell model is only based on geometry and does not in-
The total energy is the sum of the positive energy of the clude detailed interactions at this point.
electrostatic field and the negative energy of the eigen-
value, it is known to be 785 keV. It depends, ultimately,
on only two values: the radius of the neutron, which the distances between protons are constant, will auto-
is known from scattering experiments, and the scale x. matically lead to a shell model of atomic nuclei, where a
With a0 the Bohr radius we get: certain number of protons corresponds to closed shells. In
Fig. 7 we show the first seven closed shells. In particular
e2
   
a0 1 a0 1 the first four, with 4, 16, 28, and 40 protons, correspond
Wn = − 2 = − 2 × 27.211[eV ]
4πǫ0 a0 rn 2x rn 2x to magic nuclei in nuclear physics. Larger shells do not
(40) necessarily, but it has to be considered that we do not
The scale x can therefore be calculated from experimental yet have a comprehensive model of interactions within
values. With rn = 1.38 fm and Wn = 785 keV we get for an atomic nucleus, which could account for the observed
the scale x and the energy scale En : nuclear masses. Compared to DFT the additional com-
plication within a nucleus is the relatively large volume
1
x= = αf En = 511keV = me c2 (41) of protons, which probably cannot be taken into account
187791/2 with a model of point charges, and the unknown role
Both of these values are very fundamental. In the stan- of nuclear forces. Also, it is quite unclear at present if
dard model the fine structure constant αf describes the the electrostatic interactions within the nucleus have the
difference in coupling between nuclear forces and electro- same intensity as in a vacuum, how screening works, and
static forces, while the rest energy of the electron En is what role the energy of electrostatic fields will play in
one of the fundamental constants in high energy physics. the overall picture. The first steps towards such a model
At present, we do not have a clear indication of the sig- are therefore highly tentative and it is to be expected
nificance of this finding. It is quite improbable, that this that a fully quantitative model of atomic nuclei is still
result should be a mere coincidence. After all, the iden- a long time in the future. However, such a model could
tity relies on two experimental values, the radius of the provide a unified basis for discussions in nuclear physics,
neutron and the mass of the neutron. Had these values which connects it seamlessly to other fields of Physics:
been different, the fine structure constant or the rest en- something, which is manifestly not the case at present.
ergy of the electron would not have been the result of
this derivation. We expect that a nuclear model on the
basis of high-density electrons, which we also tentatively VI. SUMMARY
assume to be an element of physics in the 21st century,
will be able to answer this important question. In this presentation I have emphasized six results ob-
tained within a theoretical framework which seamlessly
combines wave mechanics and density functional theory.
B. Magic nuclei These six results are:

It is known that certain numbers of nucleons, assumed 1. The uncertainty relations are violated by up to two
to be protons and neutrons in the conventional model, orders of magnitude in thousands of experiments
lead to increased stability of atomic nuclei. If high- every single day.
density electrons are the glue that holds protons together,
then protons in a nucleus will be in a regular arrange- 2. Wavefunctions themselves are not real, but their
ment. In this case the problem of nuclear organization components, mass and spin densities, are real.
becomes to first instance a problem of three dimensional
geometry. Starting from a single proton, and adding one 3. Rotations in space generate complex numbers,
proton after the other, always under the condition that which are not described in a Gibbs vector algebra.
 12

4. Double slit interference experiments show two fea- • A linear scaling many-electron theory for con-
tures: a discrete interaction spectrum with the slit densed matter making use of the result that many
system and a thermal broadening due to environ- body effects can be encoded in a chiral optical po-
mental conditions. tential.
5. The fine structure constant and the electron rest
mass describe the nuclear energy scale.
• A density functional theory of atomic nuclei using
6. Closed shell nuclei are due to the geometrical ar- a high-density phase of electrons in the nuclear en-
rangement of nuclear protons. vironment.
On a personal note I think that fundamental Physics
has entered a new stage of development, after the near
inertia in the last thirty years. This is largely the merit of
scientists working outside their core disciplines and moti- Acknowledgements
vated by nothing else but the curiosity, how things really
work. Finally, future developments in physics, based on
this framework, could include the following elements: Helpful discussions with Krisztian Palotas are grate-
fully acknowledged. The work was supported by the
• A non-relativistic theory of quantum electrody- Royal Society London and the Canadian Institute for Ad-
namics making use of the constraint found for elec- vanced Research (CIFAR).
tromagnetic fields that the intensity as well as the
frequency of the field must be linear with the en-
ergy of emission or adsorption.

[1] WA Hofer, Physica A, 178-196 (1998). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002).
[2] WA Hofer, Front. Phys. 7, 504-508 (2012). [18] M Levy, JP Perdew, V Sahni, V, Phys. Rev. A 30, 2745-
[3] M Ternes et al., Science 319, 1066-1069 (2008). 2748 (1984).
[4] G. Binnig and H. Rohrer, Surf. Sci. 126, 236-244 (1983). [19] P Ehrenfest, Z. Phys. 45, 455-457 (1927).
[5] VM Hallmark et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2879-2882 [20] W Gerlach, O Stern, Z. Phys. 9, 353-355 (1927).
(1987). [21] RP Feynman, The Feynman Lectures Vol. III, pp. 1-1,
[6] PT Wouda et al., Surf. Sci. 359, 17-22 (1996). Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass. (1965).
[7] MF Crommie, CP Lutz, DM Eigler, Science 262, 218-220 [22] G Groessing, S Fussy, J Mesa Pascasio, H. Schwabl,
(1993). Physica A 389, 4473-4484 (2010).
[8] M Bode, Rep. Progr. Phys. 66, 523- (2003). [23] S. Kocsis et al., Science 322, 1170-1173 (2011).
[9] BC Stipe, MA Rezaei, W Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1724- [24] W. Duane, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 9, 158 (1923).
1727 (1999). [25] A Lande, From Dualism to Unity in Quantum Physics,
[10] KR Harikumar et al., Nat. Chem. 3, 400-408 (2011). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK (1960)
[11] CF Hirjibehedin et al., Science 317, 1199-1202 (2007). [26] M Arndt et al., Nature 401, 680-683 (1999).
[12] H Gawronski, M Mehldorn, K Morgenstern, Science 319, [27] A Aspect, Nature 398, 189-190 (1999).
930-933 (2008). [28] JS Bell, Physics 1, 195-199 (1964).
[13] M Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 385-388 (1988). [29] F Clauser, MA Horne, A Shimony, RA Holt, Phys. Rev.
[14] WA Hofer, Front. Phys. 7, 218-222 (2012). Lett. 23, 880-883 (1969).
[15] P Hohenberg, W Kohn, Phys. Rev. B136, 864-871 (1964). [30] Littauer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 144-147 (1961).
[16] WA Hofer, Found. Phys. 41, 754-791 (2011).
[17] C Doran, A Lasenby, Geometric Algebra for Physicists,

View publication stats