Conversation with Leading Chemist about RealQM

Quantum chemists idea of a H2O molecule in agreement with RealQM

In a discussion with a leading theoretical chemist about RealQM as a new model of atom physics in the form of classical continuum mechanics, I have met skepticism. I take this as evidence that RealQM offers a new perspective on Quantum Mechanics QM. RealQM may be wrong, but at least appears to offer something genuinely new, which after all may not be so wrong.  

Of course, something new about atom physics proposed by a mathematician/civil engineer with special interest in finite element methods for continuum mechanics, will be viewed with deep skepticism by a quantum chemistry expert educated in Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM. 

RealQM describes atoms/molecules in terms of atomic kernels surrounded by non-overlapping one-electron charge densities interacting by Coulomb potentials with electron densities meeting with a Bernoulli free boundary with continuity and zero normal derivate (Neumann natural boundary condition) as a distinct new feature. That is all: Coulomb and Bernoulli as a parameter free model + a Laplacian giving an electron "kinetic energy" in StdQM. 

RealQM can be viewed as a form of structural mechanics ideally suited for finite element methods. See this talk on Structural Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules with kinetic energy appearing as a form of elastic compression energy as measure of density gradient.

The discussion came to land on in particular Pauli's Exclusion Principle PEP, as the cornerstone of StdQM, which states that 

• No two electrons with the same spin can occupy the same position in space.                       (1)
• Electrons with different spin can do so, thus at most two since spin as only two values.   (2)                                             

RealQM can be viewed to satisfy (1) since electron charge densities do not overlap, while (2) is empty because RealQM does not involve spin as if all electrons have the same spin. See also this post. 

But this was not appreciated by the leading chemist, who claimed that RealQM does not include the Pauli Repulsion Force PRF, which is supposed to be the force required to guarantee satisfaction of PEP, and so RealQM must be fundamentally wrong! Any physics without PRF must be wrong. Period.

Is this a valid conclusion? What is in fact PRF? Is it a new force beyond the four fundamental forces of physics? ChatGPT says no; PRF is not a new force but an emergent phenomenon required to prevent two electrons with the same spin from occupying the same position. 

In structural mechanics two elastic bodies are prevented from occupying the same portion of physical space by meeting with contact forces, which ultimately are Coulomb forces. Non-penetration is then realised by some form of elastic spring force acting on the boundary as a real physics. In contrast, rigid bodies have no boundary springs and in fact are unphysical in the sense that non-penetration is a mathematical stipulation without means of physical realisation.

Similarly, PEP is a stipulation as mathematics without real physics, and the stipulation is fulfilled by assuming that the wave functions of StdQM are anti-symmetric as a purely mathematical property. The mathematical stipulation is satisfied by imposing mathematical structure, but the physics is missing. Anti-symmetric wave functions is a human construct without physics.

PRF is not a new physical force but an emerging fictitious force appearing in the mathematics, like fictitious forces in classical physics emerging from choice of coordinate system. 

In RealQM there are no fictitious forces, only Coulomb forces, but what about the Bernoulli free boundary condition? Well, continuity is realised by moving the free boundary and the Neumann condition comes from energy minimisation. No PRF is needed and no PRF emerges. 

RealQM thus has a mathematical form without the fictitious PRF emerging in StdQM. Is this a reason to reject RealQM? It is like rejecting the choice a non-rotating coordinate system in classical mechanics without fictitious forces. Why do that?  

I will seek to resume the discussion with the leading chemist to see if RealQM after all could have a chance in an upcoming review process.   

RealQM offers a new methodology for computational simulation of atoms and molecules in the spirit of classical structural mechanics with orders of magnitude smaller cost than computational realisations of StdQM as the current state of the art. 

Let me recall the following reaction to something new by established science, which I have met personally: If it is correct, then it is not new, an implication which can also be expressed: If it is new, then it is incorrect. In other words, anything which is new and correct can be refuted. At least in a mature field like StdQM without innovation since long with the last one in the form of DFT prepared in the 1960s.