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

net/publication/356193279

Deconstruction of Quantum Wave Mechanics

Article · November 2021

CITATION READS
1 292

1 author:

Daniel Crespin
Central University of Venezuela
31 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hamiltonian Projective Spectral Theorems View project

PERCEPTRON NEURAL NETWORKS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Crespin on 14 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Deconstruction of Quantum Wave Mechanics
Daniel Crespin
Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Central de Venezuela
Les hommes ne trouvent pas la vérité: ils la font,
comme ils font leur histoire.
Paul Veyne

Abstract
The model of the hydrogen atom originally introduced by Erwin Schrödinger in 1926 is
a two-body proton -electron system. It relies on the Schrödinger operator H and on the
linear Schrödinger time dependent equation. Then Niels Bohr discovered that the model
contradicts the basic dynamics of the atom and quantum wave mechanics was invented,
with incidences here told from a deconstructive standpoint. The final section of this paper
sketches a new, alternative, continuous, causal and fully deterministic wave mechanics
—already mentioned in [1], [2], [3] and elsewhere— crucially relying on H and solvable
in terms of its eigenvalues and eigenfunctions, but definitely non-linear. An important
implication is that the deterministic hydrogen atom must be conceived as a three-body
system consisting of proton , electron and photon.

§1 A quantum repass
1. In 1926 Erwin Schrödinger unveiled a wave theory where the electron bound in a hydrogen
atom was represented by a complex valued wave function ψ. His theory was extensible to
single outmost electron atoms. The title of the epoch making paper was “Quantization
as an Eigenvalue Problem”. No continuous photon absorption, nor continuous photon
radiation, nor explicit continuous transitions between stationary states at different energy
levels, nor probabilistic quantum jumps were effectively obtained; check [6].
2. In retrospective, for the hydrogen atom Schrödinger presented his linear operator H =
−∇2 + V and:
1.- Expressed the energy of a wave ψ in terms of H as a Rayleigh quotient
hH(ψ), ψi
eH (ψ) = (1)
hψ, ψi
2.- Calculated the eigenvalues of H, −λn = −Ry/(n + 1)2 , n = 0, 1, 2, . . . (Ry=Rydberg
energy constant)
3.- Deduced that eigenfunctions ψn ∈ En have energy eH (ψn ) = −λn
4.- Determined a basis Bn = {ψn`m | n ≥ ` ≥ |m|} for the eigenspaces En = ker(H + λn I)
5.- From |Bn | = (n + 1)2 found that the eigenspace dimensions were dim En = (n + 1)2
6.- Established that the direct sum E = n≥0 En is dense in L2 (R3 ; C)
L

7.- Postulated as law of movement for the wave functions ψ of the bound electron the
Schrödinger time dependent equation (STDE)
∂ψ −i
= H(ψ) (2)
∂t ~
3. The STDE can be equivalently expressed as a unitary linear flow
Ut = exp((−i/~)Ht) : E → E (3)
so that an initial wave function ψ (0) after time t becomes
ψ (t) = Ut (ψ (0) )
and the Hermitian product is preserved
hψ (t) , ψ (t) i = hUt (ψ (0) ), Ut (ψ (0) )i = hψ (0) , ψ (0) i

4. The normalized wave function amplitudes |ψ|2 /kψk2 were reasonably interpreted by Schrö-
dinger as electron charge densities.

§2 The SDTE in trouble

5. That same year 1926 at a private meeting in Copenhagen where Werner Heisenberg par-
ticipated, see [4], Niels Bohr discussed the wave mechanics of atoms with Schrödinger.
The following physical facts were relevant for Bohr:
1.- The bound physical electron has preference for stationary states corresponding to eigen-
functions ψn , having stationary energies −λn numerically equal to the eigenvalues.
2.- A physical electron initially in a stationary state ψm with energy −λm , if driven by an
appropriate incoming photon φ with energy λ = λm − λn > 0, is transformed and adopts
a new stationary state ψn with energy −λn while the incoming photon momentarily dis-
appears.
3.- A physical electron in an initial excited stationary state ψn with energy −λn > −λ0 , by
itself modifies its state and reaches a new stationary state ψm having energy −λm < −λn
while an outgoing photon φ appears with energy λ = λm − λn > 0.
6. Bohr may have stressed some or all of the following mathematical properties of the STDE:
1.- The eigenfunctions have no special dynamical status, that is, they are not fixed points
of equation (2), nor of the flow (3) (only ψ ≡ 0 is fixed), while the restless wave functions
ψ (t) = Ut (ψ (0) ) are well defined for any initial wave function ψ = ψ (0) and for all times t.
(t)
2.- If the initial state is an eigenfunction, ψ (0) = ψm ∈ Em , then ψm = Ut (ψm ) is an
eigenfunction belonging to the same eigenvalue −λm for all times t.
3.- If the initial state is not an eigenfunction, ψ (0) ∈/ n≥0 En , then ψ (t) = Ut (ψ (0) ) is not
S
an eigenfunction for all times t.
4.- The wave functions never change their energy. Hence trajectories of equation (2) that
absorb or radiate energy while joining ψm with ψn do not exist. Instead
eH (ψ (0) ) = eH (ψ (t) ) for all t

7. If taken at face value and tentatively considered as a physical law the STDE implies:
1.- Wave functions 0 6= ψ permanently move.
2.- All waves, particularly the eigenfunctions, move with constant energy.
3.- The quantum jumps should never happen.

2
 8. In consequence the physically preferred stationary (motionless) states, as well as the phys-
ically established processes of absorption and radiation of photons are all inconsistent with
the STDE.

9. Summing up, shortly after the appearance of [6] Bohr had shown that the physical behavior
of the bound electron, as deduced from the fact that spectral lines exist, was incompat-
ible with the mathematical wave dynamics of the STDE. Any “physical justification” of
equation (2) became impossible.

10. The reaction of Schrödinger was: “If all this damned quantum jumping were really here to
stay, I should be sorry I ever got involved with quantum theory”. This is told by Heisenberg
in [4], chapter 6 “Fresh Fields (1926-1927)” where he qualifies Bohr as a fanatic.

11. Afterward Schrödinger jumped off the quantum bandwagon to never again ride it. All
these events are understandable within the controversies that may arise when sufficiently
qualified scientists examine a new theory.

§3 The fundamental question

12. The contribution of Bohr regarding (2) is clear: bound electrons behave in a manner that
contradicts the STDE. Since 1926 to this day the fundamental problem of atomic physics
is to decide which of the following alternatives is more reasonable
The quantum alternative: Proclaim that the STDE is a correct law of nature and
create the current quantum mechanics together with its descendant theories. See §4.
The classical alternative: Announce that the STDE contradicts physical facts and
declare open season on the search for an appropriate equation. See §5 and §7.

§4 How Quantism arose

13. After an impeccable argument that showed how the STDE contradicted electron behavior,
Bohr with the aid of Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Paul Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli and
others, incredibly maintained the very same physically incorrect STDE as a “quantum
theoretically” valid law of wave movement for their version of quantum mechanics. They
did not seem to care much about physical consistency. Why?

14. Niels Bohr had been obsessed with his 1913 quantum model of hydrogenic atoms where
point-like electrons (infinitely small material particles endowed with mass and charge)
were accompanied by the following ad-hoc hypotheses:
1.- Circular orbits with quantized angular momentum values n~ were “somehow” preferred
by electrons.
2.- The preferred orbits were also “somehow” in stationary unstable equilibrium, except
the ones with n = 1 in stable equilibrium.
3.- Sudden transitions, or passage of electrons between preferred orbits at different energy
levels, since then called quantum jumps, “somehow”happened.

3
15. Apparently Bohr and collaborators passed the ideas of the circular model to the more
sophisticated electron wave mechanics of Schrödinger. They happily abandoned mature
and robust physics in favor fresh and exotic looking mathematics. Just replace the station-
ary circular orbits with eigenfunctions ψn to obtain seemingly stationary mathematical
objects having the correct energies −λn . Then convert the preference for eigenfunctions
into a postulate and give the “somehow” jumping a probabilistic maquillage.
16. In detail, under the impression that eigenfunctions were “somehow” preferred and that
transitions “somehow” happened, Bohr teamed up with Heisenberg, Born, Dirac and Pauli
and together axiomatically introduced and supported:
1.- Quantization of states, or electron preference for states represented by eigenfunctions.
2.- The extravagant but ideologically convenient principles of uncertainty, indeterminacy
and wave particle duality.
3.- The probabilistic interpretation of waves.
4.- Intrinsically random quantum jumps.
5.- The probabilities of quantum jumps (quantum transitions) between stationary states,
to be calculated from inner products.
6.- A probabilistic electrodynamics to take care of the electron-photon interaction.
17. The previous discussion can be viewed as a deconstruction of the history and narrative
of quantum wave mechanics. A post-quantum reconstruction of classical wave mechanics
in a manner consistent with Schrödinger original intentions is now needed and will be
outlined below. The key is an appropriate time dependent equation for wave functions.

§5 An alternative to Quantism

18. In view of the delicate situation created by the items listed in 5 and 6 a more reasonable
action by Bohr/Heisenberg/Born/Dirac/Pauli would have been to pronounce the STDE a
fake news. And then engage in the search for the natural, causal, continuous deterministic
time dependent equation (DTDE) governing electron wave functions and simultaneously
guiding the photon (if the photon was at all needed, which turned out to be the case).
19. The rules for the search could have been:
1.- The space of states (kinematics) should provide a proper placement for the wave func-
tions ψ and the operator H.
2.- The motionless waves should correspond with the eigenfunctions of H.
3.- The flow (one-parameter group, dynamics or movement of wave functions) specified by
the DTDE must imply the energy transitions in a classical manner (i.e. honestly deter-
ministic, non-probabilistic).
4.- The physical facts listed in 5 must be consistent with the DTDE.
5.- The DTDE should not suffer the shortcomings mentioned in 6.
20. Said otherwise, the eigenvalues −λn , eigenspaces En and eigenfunctions ψn`m of the oper-
ator H should relate naturally to the sought DTDE on which they would essentially play
the role already assigned by Schrödinger.

4
21. Beware that that all linear equations ∂ψ/∂t = (α + iβ)H(ψ) fail to provide an appropriate
dynamics for the hydrogen atom. This is what Bohr arguments in 6 show for the case
α = 0, β = −1/~. Thus the sought DTDE cannot be linear in the standard sense of being
a linear vector field ψ → (α + iβ)H(ψ) over the vector space E of wave functions.

22. A better performing quadratic non-linear Hamiltonian system can be associated to H, ac-
tually the one described below in 29 and postulated as the DTDE. Given pair of stationary
electron configurations [ψm ] ∈ P Em and [ψn ] ∈ P En with energies −λm 6= −λn there are,
with appropriate choice of the initial state ([ψ], φ), trajectories in the space of states that
projected over the space P E of electron configurations join the given configurations.
∗
23. With the electron [ψ] ∈ P E and the photon φ ∈ T[ψ] P E interacting and mutually affecting
the movements of each other under the DTDE, physical substance and mathematical tools
are provided to the guiding wave, hidden variables and occult parameters which together
with need of completeness were ideas and schemes vigorously and clairvoyantly proposed
by Louis de Broglie, Erwin Schrödinger, Albert Einstein and David Bohm.

§6 Hamiltonian Classical Mechanics

24. Recall the classical Hamiltonian mathematical systems Q, f used to construct the kine-
matics, energy, and law of movement of physical systems:
1.- A space of configurations (or space of phases) Q equal to a smooth manifold having
typical elements q ∈ Q called configuration variables
2.- A space of states T ∗ Q equal to the cotangent manifold of Q with typical elements
(q, p) ∈ T ∗ Q where p is a conjugate variable of q, or a cotangent vector p ∈ Tq∗ Q
3.- A smooth potential energy function fPot : Q → R
4.- A kinetic energy function fKin : T ∗ Q → R that is quadratic on fibers
5.- A total energy function f : T ∗ Q → R equal to the sum of the potential and kinetic
energies, f (q, p) = fPot (q) + fKin (q, p)
6.- An infinitesimal law of movement or time evolution for the states (q, p) specified by
Hamilton equation
 
∂(q, p) ∂f ∂f
= ,− (4)
∂t ∂p ∂q

25. The above Hamilton equation can be considered as a tangent vector field over the space of
states, Xf : T ∗ Q → T T ∗ Q. In our case it will be assumed that it has a flow Ut : T ∗ Q →
T ∗ Q defined for all t. As in Bohmian mechanics it will be said that p rides or is mounted
over q.

§7 Sketch of the deterministic equation

26. For the deterministic hydrogen atom considerL

the real eigenspaces of H, En = ker(H +λn I)
2
with dim En = (n + 1) and their sum E = n≥0 En which equipped with the real inner

5
 R
product hψ1 , ψ2 i = ψ1 ψ2 is in fact an orthogonal sum. The space E is a non-complete
infinite dimensional inner product space.
27. The hydrogen atom will be considered as a physical system consisting of one proton, one
electron and one photon mathematically idealized and represented by respectively:
1.- The Coulomb electrostatic potential V
2.- A wave function ψ or more precisely by a ray [ψ] ∈ P E
3.- A conjugate wave function φ orthogonal to the ray [ψ], hψ, φi = 0
28. The Schrödinger operator H will be understood as the sum of: (1) an internal energy
term equal to the negative Laplace operator −∇2 , and (2) an electrostatic interaction
term, equal to multiplication by the Coulomb potential V .
29. The deterministic time dependent equation for the hydrogen atom is a Hamilton equation
of the type explained in 24 with an appropriate choice of manifold of configurations and
energy functions:
1.- The space of electron configurations is the real projective space Q = P E with typical
elements the rays [ψ] = {µψ | µ ∈ R} to be interpreted as physically dimensionless relative
densities
2.- The space of photon states is the cotangent manifold T ∗ P E with typical elements that
are pairs ([ψ], φ) with [ψ] ∈ P E and φ a wave function orthogonal to [ψ], φ ∈ [ψ]⊥ . This
wave φ is the momentum of the relative density [ψ] and represents a photon
3.- The potential energy is the homogeneous quadratic map eH ([ψ]) = hH(ψ), ψi/hψ, ψi
4.- The kinetic energy is eK ([ψ], φ) = (1/2)hφ, φi/hψ, ψi
5.- The total energy f = eT : T ∗ P E → R is equal to the sum of the potential and kinetic
energies, eT ([ψ], φ) = eH ([ψ]) + eK ([ψ], φ)
6.- The deterministic time dependent equation (DTDE), or natural equation, or electron-
photon law of movement, simultaneously governing the bound electron and bound photon
is
 
∂([ψ], φ) ∂eT ∂eT
= ,− (5)
∂t ∂φ ∂[ψ]
30. The DTDE is equivalent to a vector field tangent to the manifold of electron-photon states
Xe T : T ∗ P E → T T ∗ P E (6)
and has a deterministic, continuous and causal flow
Ut : T ∗ P E → T ∗ P E (7)
defined for all t. Under this flow an initial state evolves becoming at time t > 0 the
posterior state ([ψ (t) ], φ(t) ) = Ut ([ψ (0) ], φ(0) ), and at time −t < 0 the preceding state
([ψ (−t) ], φ(−t) ) = U−t ([ψ (0) ], φ(0) ).
31. Equation (5) and its flow (7) are not completely unfamiliar. They could be acceptably
called the antipodal reduction of the equation and flow of a spherical infinite dimensional
degenerate Neumann system with potential energy given by the diagonal matrix of H
(eigenvalues −λn , multiplicities (n + 1)2 ). See [5] and references there.

6
32. Consider critical energy values −λm < −λn and a pair of stationary electron configurations
[ψm ] ∈ P Em , [ψn ] ∈ P En . The following terminology will be used:
1.- The lower energy is −λm ; the upper energy is −λn .
2.- The energy gap is λm − λn
3.- The lower configuration is [ψm ]; the upper configuration is [ψn ].

33. Then:
1.- The linear subspace [ψm , ψn ] is an H-invariant plane.
2.- The projective P [ψm , ψn ] is a circle containing the upper and lower configurations:
[ψm ], [ψn ] ∈ P [ψm , ψn ].
3.- The cotangent manifold T ∗ P [ψm , ψn ] is a cylinder invariant under the flow Ut .

34. The restriction of the deterministic hydrogen Hamiltonian to T ∗ P [ψm , ψn ] is equivalent

to a simple pendulum with maximum and minimum potential energy values −λm and
−λm and whose separatrix S has energy equal to the upper energy −λn . Small enough
neighborhoods NS of the separatrix, S ⊆ NS ⊆ P E (“tubes”around S in P E), are useful
when analyzing the physical implications of the deterministic flow Ut .

35. There are exactly two wave functions belonging to the upper configuration [ψn ], ±φnm =
(λm − λn )(±ψn ), which as photons mounted on the lower configuration have kinetic energy
equal to the gap
∗
([ψm ], ±φnm ) ∈ T[ψ m]
P E eK (±φnm ) = λm − λn

36. The hydrogen states ([ψm ], ±φnm ) ∈ T ∗ P [ψm , ψn ] have trajectories that are parametriza-
tions of the separatrix. When projected over P E these trajectories start at the lower
configuration, pr∗P E (U0 ([ψm ], ±φnm )) = [ψm ], and asymptotically reach the upper configu-
rations
lim pr∗P E (Ut ([ψm ], ±φnm )) = [ψn ]
t→±∞

§8 Conclusions

37. From a heuristic viewpoint the causal and continuous hydrogen atom is a pendulum having
infinitely many degrees of freedom with stationary states arranged in a sequence of critical
manifolds P En . The trajectories in P E joining [ψm ] to [ψn ] are swings produced when a
captured incoming photon φ̃nm ∼ φnm “pushes up” the electron. On the “returning” swing
(depending sensitively on initial conditions) an outgoing photon is released.

38. It should be mentioned that two facts:

1.- The wave nature of ψ and φ
2.- E is dense in L2 (R3 ; R)
make possible to deterministically explain the absorption and radiation of photons.

Oteyeva
November 14, 2021

7
 References
[1] Crespin, D. To Quantism and Back, 2016. (pdf)

[2] Crespin, D. Quantum Wave Collapse is Unsolvable, 2016. (pdf)

[3] Crespin, D. The Natural Model of the Hydrogen Atom, 2017. (pdf)

[4] Heisenberg, W. Physics and Beyond, 1969. Translated from the German by Arnold J.
Pomerans. World Perspectives, 2013.

[5] Dullin, H. R., Holger, R. and Hanssmann, H. The Degenerate C. Neumann system I:
Symmetry Reduction and Convexity. 2012

[6] Schrödinger, E. Quantization as an eigenvalue problem. I,II,III,IV Annalen der Physik 384,
1926.

View publication stats