Ionization energy and quantum idea….

Skip to first unread message

Sorin Cosofret

Feb 23, 2015, 4:45:24 PM2/23/15

For more then centuries, millions of researchers have been working to implement the quantum idea in different fields of science. This work provided to be so extensive and fruitfully that few have ever had the time to think if this quantum idea is so consistent with experimental reality.

Around 2005, I wanted to publish a scientific paper based on idea that ionization energy variation contradicts the quantum hypothesis. As expected, no scientific journal was interested to publish such paper, even the data in the paper could be verified by a layman without any scientific background.

Is it something simpler than a linear dependency of two units in a graph for a clear conclusion?

Someone would ask himself rhetorically… how could it be possible to not publish such paper?

The answer is very simple: how could a referee deny all his/her scientific activity and say bluntly that not only (s)he, but millions of people have worked to a new epicycles theory in science?

Therefore the idea was published in an Atomic structure book in 2007:


Later the concept was revised and improved, published in another book about chemistry in 2009, and advertised in for discussion groups in 2009 with next formulation:


The neglected ionization energy variation for isoelectronic series can reveal more useful information about electrons structure; the problem is these data are in contradiction with actual quantum theory. The quantum prediction for work functions values are in contradiction with experiments; for metals, ionization energy and work function must be equal but in reality they are not.

For other classes of compounds quantum mechanic fails again to predict something. A striking example is the case of metallic oxides having work functions values smaller then metals. It is outrageous how a covalent or ionic bound liberate electrons easier then a metallic bound in frame of actual physics.


People who haven’t learned from past experiences will have all the time the tendency to repeat the same errors. I will paraphrase a famous economist who said that in a free market economy there is an invisible hand pushing the things forward; in science the opposite is true: the invisible hand of an entire system think that pushing something under the carpet will maintain the actual status quo.

Will it be so or will not be so?!

Best regards,




Elliot Temple

Feb 23, 2015, 8:02:01 PM2/23/15
to BoI
Hi, have you read Karl Popper, Ayn Rand and my websites? Are you interested in learning philosophy?

My philosophy websites are:

-- Elliot Temple

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages