The Annals of Frontier and Exploratory Science

Classical Mechanics Attempts for Description of Atomic Physics (ClM One-scale One-phase Homogeneous Physics - ClMO2HP) Phenomena

Vladi S. Travkin

Hierarchical Scaled Physics and Technologies (HSPT), Rheinbach, Germany, Denver, CO, USA

We would like again in these critical remarks to stand out that the most of our analytical deliberations of the published outcomes of either theorists or experimenters are of not specific choice, but only of a very few outstanding workers in their fields that are of concern to 2nd physics and/or to HSP.

Regarding the works in the past that were devoted to more strict exploitation of the Classical Physics or Classical Mechanics directly for the sub-atomic physics fields in the HS physics - as an example of fusing the Heterogeneous Scaled physics and the known to everyone physical (technical) sciences student the Classical Mechanics of XVIII - that has the start in XVIII, but has being used heavily and in the development up to now under the same name, we can point out first of all to the publications (these are the only publications that directly aimed and explain the connection of both physical disciplines) [1,2]

"What Classical Mechanics of XVIII Provided in XX Has Done Wrong to the Base of Mechanical Science Including the Classical Mechanics of Continuum Particles and Conventional Orthodox Homogeneous Particle Physics" ,

"The Major Forces Have Been Missing From Governing Equations for Dynamics of Sub-atomic and Continuum Particles, Bodies in XVIII - XX" .

We have already spent a substantial effort many years back then actually on the analysis and questions regarding the semi-amateur theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (CQM) developed by R.Mills in addition to his outstanding Experimental results - and wrote the excerpts from that analysis in:

"R.Mills' Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (CQM) and Maxwell Equations as a Communicator Between CQM and the Rest of Physics" ,

Many things were said correctly by R.Mills about QM and COHP Atomic Physics [3,4], for example - " Historically, the point at which QM broke with classical laws can be traced to the issue of non-radiation of the one-electron atom that was addressed by Bohr with a postulate of stable orbits in defiance of the physics represented by Maxwell's equations."

And - "Ironically, both Bohr and Schrodinger used the electrostatic Coulomb potential of Maxwell's equations, but abandoned the electrodynamic laws."

Well, at the same time it can be even more justified if we ask just at the beginning - Whethere the electron is orbiting the nucleus (proton) at all? Which is not, as later on after ~70-75 years of mass illusions research has shown up:

"Particle Physics - Heterogeneous Polyscale Collectively Interactive" ,

"Particle Physics (Particle Physics 2). Fundamentals" ,

and

"What's Going on in Particle Physics with Homogeneous Approach? How we Can Up-scale from the Sub-Atomic to the Continuum Mechanics? By MD it is the False Method (via the Homogeneous MD) and Even a False Math" ,

"What is the Particle Physics Now?"

and in

"What's Wrong with Particle Physics and Atomic Science Regarding the Averaging Assessment and Prohibited Idea of Scaling in Them?"

The general observation is that to be better if experimenters still keep sticking to their experimental fields and experiences instead of making new theories appeared.

Many physicists made attempts and suggested the moves outside of limited "edition" QM and SR, GR mostly imaginable mathematical Atomic physics in XX century. Most of them had fallen in professional "battle", lost their carriers, and even more.

The Great role of M.Gryzinski [5-8] (see other references therein) was in the establishment of a fearless path, road to the non-imaginable, non-fictitious physical objects and physics of Atomic and Sub-atomic scales.

=============================================================

Pseudo-Classical Approaches (PCA) (pseudo- because the particles still are taken as the PMCS' (point-mass-charge-spin) objects and/or other obvious initial physical data have been screwed or adjusted in a favor of claimant's hypothesis)

======================================================

Somsikov, V.M., " Structured Particles Mechanics and Geometry," in The Search Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches, Concepts, (Vol. 7), pp. 132-144, (2010)

ABSTRACT:

"In the framework of the laws of classical mechanics provided analysis of the dynamics of systems of structured particles consisting of potentially interacting material points. The derivation of the equations of the interaction and movement of structured particles is done. An expression for the frictional force obtained. Considered contrast to the geometry of space dynamics of structured particles from the geometry of space material points. It is shown that irreversibility of the dynamics of systems of structured particles is due to the increase of internal energy due to the motion energy.

A theoretical study of the first law of thermodynamics. "

In this paper [9] author tried to consider the techniques for 2-scale formal mathematical - no physics, but COHP thermodynamics which is the Homogeneous science and only this word says much about great restrictions of this science.

The problem author study in this paper is very important one - it is about the connection and scaleportation of physics between the scales - meanwhile, author thinks about the paper's goal differently.

Nevertheless, the methods used here in this paper are inappropriate and have the only interesting feature that we wanted to present to students and professionals as again the evidence of the 3rd stage of the truth: Arthur Schopenhauer - "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

The truth is based on the 3P (Polyscale-Polyphase-Polyphysics) HSP-VAT [10-30,35-37,41-42] including and all ideas and publications in [60] and therein. The HSP-VAT is the part of the base of 2nd Physics so far.

Still the paper is done with the spirit and content of QM and COH physics concepts and conjectures that brought in our discussion and analysis.

In p. 132 of this paper author starts with explanation of - irreversibility of the dynamics of systems of structured particles:

"Irreversibility arises in the averaging of the phase space of an arbitrarily small physical volume. Explanation of the nature of the averaging based on the postulation of the existence of random fluctuations, which is equivalent to denial of determinism. This contradicts classical mechanics [2]. Therefore it is very important to find a deterministic explanation of irreversibility, or the inability to prove its existence. In this regard it is of interest for dynamics of structured particles (SP), "

In p. 133 of this paper author continue to formulate: :

"...when the SP are specified as equilibrium subsystems (ESS) of the potentially interacting material points (MP). It turns out that under certain conditions the dynamics of such systems is irreversible. [3] "

Our comments:

That's it - as soon as we are told about the "potentially interacting ... Points" - then we know that the physics is ended and author starts to build his own personal mathematical structures with the idea then - later on to drag this construction to some imitation for physics' phenomenon, problem. That was again the tools of XVIII-XIX that lately were accepted in XX because there is no methods, tools in COHP to describe the real averaging and scaling of phenomena in Heterogeneous media, and had not been until the 1980s -2000s.

Then, after some introductory and misleading text about Material Points - that is mostly repeating concepts of equilibrium thermodynamics, author starts to address the most interesting.

In p. 133 of this paper one can find that:

"The objective of this work to clarify the nature of the irreversibility of why it appears in ESS systems and why it is not a model for the system as a set of MP. To do this, we consider the derivation of the equation of motion of two interacting ESS, consisting of material points. With the help of this equation is given an explanation of the mechanism of friction in the framework of classical mechanics. It is shown that the difference between the geometry of the space dynamics of the ESS geometry of material point is the presence of two invariants for SP - internal energy of SP and the energy of its motion."

Our comments: As soon as these equations are developed with wrong techniques and the definition of ESS - then there is no sence to thoroughly analyze further derivations.

In p. 134 one can find that:

"In these variables, we define the energy of each ESS as the sum of the internal energy and the energy of their movement. By differentiating the energy system of the time we find the conditions of its conservation equation of energy exchange between the ESS, and from it determine the equation of motion of the ESS. "

Our comments: Methodics of COH Particle Physics [35,22,23].

Our comments: In pp. 135-137 a reader can find unbelievable number of external conjectural new definitions and variables having almost no real connection to the genuine physics either of meso- or atomic, or sub-atomic scales. For example, we can give just some of them for shaking the public confidence:

in p. 135:

".....Then the system's energy is the sum of the kinetic energies of the MP (Material Point): $T_{N}$ their potential energy in the field of external forces $U^{env}$ and

, where $r_{ij}=r_{i}-r_{j}$ , $r_{i},$ $v_{i}$ - coordinates and velocities of -th MP, i.e.

const.

By replacing the variables share the energy to the energy of motion of the CM and its internal energy. Differentiating the energy of the system over time, we obtain [7]:

where

" $\widetilde{v}_{i}$ , $\widetilde{r}_{i}$ speed and position of MP relative to the CM in the external field. $V_{N}$ , $R_{N}$ - velocity and coordinates of the CM of the system.

Equation (1) the energy balance equation of MP system in the external field. The left side of the first term change in the kinetic energy of the system The second term is the change in internal energy of the system , defined by coordinates and velocities of MPs relative to the CM. The right part of the work of external forces that change the energy system. The first term changes $T_{N}^{tr}$ . The second term defines the work forces changing the $E_{N}^{ins}$ . ..."

Our comments: The construction - really construction not derivation - of this equation means - just add what we usually suppose and know from physics of XVIII-XX? Inevitably in COHP workers do not know about many other phenomena in the cloud of Physical particles [1,2,16-23,26,27,35,etc.].

Our comments: Equation 1 is the pure imaginable equation built on the base of conjectural suppositions about acting forces and famous QM Superposition Principle. Naturally this is the artificial construction of XVIII century.

Our comments: In pp. 133-137 a reader can find a numerous conjectures as initial statements. After reading pp. 134-135 conjectures and definitions there is no need to consume further suggestions in the paper. The paper is the artificial frivolous scheme for interaction of unspecified PM (point-mass) objects ("particles"). There is practically no contemporary physics in this development.

Summary of this Semi-classical Approach for the Structured "Particles" by Somsikov, V. M. (2010):

1) What does it mean - when people do not know or neglect some useful for them information. The matter is for this topic or part - the beginning of it, by this author (Somsikov, V.M.) that it has been under investigation and the whole science has been developed - HSP-VAT as for the communication of physical phenomena, processes at the different scales and media via Hierarchical mathematics and physics methods throughout ~1980-2015 [10-30,35-37,1,2,41,42].

While earlier the mathematics and technical developments in VAT (Volume Averaging Theory) Heterogeneous Continuum Mechanics started even in 1967 [10-15]!

This author while did not know this - nevertheless, tried to invent the "Wheel" again [41,42] and has been developing the inadequate mathematical apparatus for the One-scale (when could be of two scales) Homogeneous Thermodynamics based method. With conservation of energy - which is wrong for the Polyscale not closed processes (while the phenomena with Particles and the aether CANNOT be Closed by definition and by properties of the Aether), without the aether, with still unidentified Point-Mass "particles."

2) We analyzed and wrote in many texts, manuscripts, for example in [61-68], on this kind of physical media and tools for them pretending to be the classical ones, but in reality the pseudo-classical Homogeneous still One-scale (HO) and QM following methods [36-37] of COH (Conventional One-scale Orthodox Homogeneous) physics. There are a lot of the "How Not to Do in some specific sciences or generally in COH physics if you feel or know that COHP is invalid in your - or some general, physics areas?" manuscripts published for many years in [1,2,14-20,29-30,35-37,41-42,58-59,61-79], others.

3) No electromagnetism and its interactions is the nullifying fact to any hope for real physical phenomena consideration at the sub-atomic and atomic scales.

4) Recognition of pure mathematical constructs for physical phenomena or processes is a needed method of physical progress, development.

We ought to say that this construction of Pseudo-classical Approach for the Structured "Particles" - Point-Mass (PM, no charge even) objects (pseudo- because the particles still are taken as the PM' (point-mass) objects and/or other obvious initial physical data have been screwed or adjusted in a favor of claimant's hypothesis) is the useless built that only shadowing the way it is already known for the scale connecting physical phenomena physics HSP-VAT [1,2,10-30,35-37,41-42,58-79]. The part of the 2nd Physics.

5) This approach (by Somsikov [9]) - is the natural intuitive move toward communication of the one scale objects to the another scale Mathematical objects (an attempt for the Scaleportation) - can be classified as the Mathematical-Mathematical Physics (MMP) method that in attempt to connect the object of different scale and physics uses Only mathematical and Homogeneous Thermodynamics definitions, explanations. That is obviously just the mathematical imagination based method. Not enough for describing the physics of phenomena [1,2,10-30,35-37,41-42,58-79].

6) The obvious wrong move of COHP to use everywhere the wrong postulate of Energy Conservation for Scaleportation - is breaking the spine of this initially good idea of connection objects of a one scale to the objects of Hierarchical nature on another scale for this.

7) Author as a mathematician understands that the use of Gauss-Ostrogradsky theorem would be inadequate for his Structured "Particles" description.

8) Reading this paper's derivations [9] the need for 3P (Polyscale-Polyphase-Polyphysics) Thermodynamics as the Covering part of 2nd physics is obvious while considering imbalances in Conventional Scaleless Homogeneous Thermodynamics.

======================================================

(2004) Vikhrev,V.V. ==================================================

32. Vikhrev, V.V., "The Magnetic Field Configuration of Moving Electrons," in The Search Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches, Concepts, (Vol. 2), pp. 39-53, Novosibirsk, (2004) (in Russian)

In this paper author tries to set-up the electron's EM fields in the space with the approximate solutions that exist in COHP for Point-Mass-Charge-Spin (PMCS) sub-atomic "particles." Researchers in COHP named them particles, in spite that they are just Points- no volume, no surface, nothing to see!

This statement to a large degree is over exaggeration of the real picture regarding the classical physics and this claim for the use of, or even merging QM and really wrong with single-scale dynamic formulation problems and mechanics of still PMCS (point-mass-charge-spin) sub-atomic "particle" like electrons.

We discuss some points about the models for EM fields for an electron and of generally in this paper and must admit that these 3 (at least) paper of the author present the just one more example of the so-called - "we have been making in the same mode and for a long time Ourselves" from - re-quoting A. Schopenhauer: "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

This is the 3rd Stage of recognition and following into the 2nd physics direction for more than 15 years so far now in 2015. They are not educated in the 2nd physics, they have no understanding - What is the difference between COHP and HSP? COHP workers, who think that they can merge COHP and HSP of the 2nd physics with the ruling conjectures of COHP - just don't know how wrong they are and how far they are behind.

We must recollect at the meantime, that the time passed for the Leibniz's and Newton's mathematical calculus - "The Differentiation and Integration Sciences" after creation and publications to the time of Teaching them in the universities had passed near 90 years, unfortunately.

In p. 41 of this paper one can find that:

"2. The magnetic field generated by a moving electron

Consider the configuration of the magnetic field of a charged particle moving at a speed much lower than the rate dawns. The electric field in the coordinate system moving with the particle is equal to where - the charge of the particles, - distance to the particles, - unit vector of the location of the particle.

If the particle moves with velocity $\QTR{bf}{v}$ , there is a magnetic field, which at $v\ll c$ and neglecting the delay spread of the electromagnetic field is "

Our comments: Deliberation of any feature of the model in this study based completely, as in thousands of QM works, on the silently accepted premise that particle-electron is the point-mass-charge-spin (PMCS) object "particle" [1,2,16-24,27-30].

As we wrote in numerous investigations, papers, manuscripts - that the electron will be a particle only if it has some space for itself, has some volume [19,22-24]. Otherwise it is the QM myth that falsely is beaten in the heads of professors and their students. Not all of them believe in this - many have left physics because of this metaphysics in it for the sub-atomic particles.

In reality and according to experiments electron eventually has the volume and structure, many features of it students can start learning in publications of Ph.M.Kanarev [19,22-24,44-57] and afterwards about scaled presentations and models of electron and electron's arrays, clouds in [19-24,27-30,1,2 ].

That means also - in this paper [32] (Vikhrev, 2004) is used the PMCS "electron" and the QM Principle of the Superposition - which is also simplifying linear presentation of phenomena in QM and similar related theories.

Because all these formulae (1)-(5) are using the PMCS "electron" and the QM Principle of the Superposition - we would like to place some comments regarding the justification of this in QM and critics of this modeling as of PMCS "electron" and the QM Principle of the Superposition.

So - neither (1)-(3) nor (4-5) are the correct Local electromagnetic fields around of the electron.

Superposition Principle in COHP (QM etc.):

Our comments: Regarding the superposition principle - which is not true, we must introduce more on the rejection of this "principle" for Heterogeneous (not saying even about Nonliear) media and processes in these media.

The matter of fact is that the superposition principle is usually applicable to the media and processes that ARE NOT INTERACTING, or when their interaction can be neglected. As for example - when the two weighs are put in the scales - the interaction of these media can be just measerable. So - we can say that both weighs can be added one to another to make the total weigh as F $_{t}$ =F $_{1}$ +F $_{2}.$

Another thing is when the two (or more) electromagnetic particles are placed near, or even not so in close positions. Their electric and magnetic fields - those are just the solutions for each particle of (let it be) Linear MHL equations - well, and they need to be averaged - not summed up. The simple summation is the wrong mathematics for interacting processes or fields, for Heterogeneous ones. But this is the sense of the superposition principle.

That means when workers write as in [32-34] (Vikhrev, 2004,2008,2010) that the combined field of forces is the sum of fields, for example (Vikhrev, 2008) in

where in the right hand side we see the four separate additive terms reflecting upon the "reality" of just imaginable (by theorists of COHP) forces acting on a particle.

"where $\QTR{bf}{v}$ - the speed of the particle, $\QTR{bf}{F}_{q}$ - the force acting on the particle due to the presence of it electric charge q, $\QTR{bf}{F}_{\mu }$ - the force acting on the particle due to the presence of its magnetic moment $\QTR{bf}{\mu }$ , $\QTR{bf}{f}_{q}$ - radiation reaction force due to the presence in it of the charge , and $\QTR{bf}{f}_{\mu }$ - radiation reaction force due to the presence of the particle's magnetic moment $\QTR{bf}{\mu }$ ."

More of our comments:

These forces likely are not imaginable, but definitely are not the additive - in part because when taking the body of electron as a volumetric particle with its own EM and dynamic properties - which it is, then those forces in the right hand side are not of a simple additive characters.

Also, the formulae given in [32] (Vikhrev, 2004 ) as, for example,

or in [33] (Vikhrev, 2008 ) as the sums of the fields (additivity property in the problem)

not proven to be of additive quality and more on that, because the particles we are discussing here are mostly located in a close proximity or at least have the interactive dynamics - then the superposition principle is invalid.

More of our comments: Besides - What are the electromagnetic fields in the space between the particles? The great question that COHP cannot answer because the aether is being prohibited in COHP, but "classical" vacuum or quantum vacuum are not the fields and don't have the attributes for being a field. While this intermedium between the particles should be of Fluid-like properties - because all particles ( well, almost all of reliably known in physics) are spinning as volumetric bodies of definite shape. They - particls, rotate with the tremendous speed WITHIN the intermedium and they both interact, one is rotating while that rotation the another medium (aether) should accept and transfer further in the space these volumetric rotations, spinning and the movement of particle as a volumetric form within the intermedium. The dynamics of sub-atomic particles conjugates with the dynamics of aether itself. Their interaction means and interaction through their EM fields and throughout the momentum dynamics of the aether that is the intermedium between all of them [19-23].

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Electromagnetism

in the vacuum conceptually assigned that - "The superposition principle is always exactly true.[31] For example, the electric potential generated by two charges is the simple addition of the potentials generated by each charge in isolation. The value of the electric field at any point around these two charges is found by calculating the vector sum of the two electric fields from each of the charges acting alone."

- which is not true and which is the fantastic writings.

Superposition Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

" the superposition principle,[1] also known as superposition property, states that, for all linear systems, the net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually."

"The homogeneity and additivity properties together are called the superposition principle. A linear function is one that satisfies the properties of superposition. Which is defined as

F(x $_{1}$ +x $_{2}$ )=F(x $_{1}$ )+F(x $_{2}$ ) , Additivity

F(a x)=a F(x) , Homogeneity

for scalar . ..."

In the same p. 41 one can find further that:

The expression for the magnetic field (1) is also obtained from the Biot-Savart law when applied to a single particle. This magnetic field has the form of circular rings around the axis of movement of the particle (Fig. 1a). "

Our comments:

Meanwhile, from the Biot-Savart law for a single particle (in SI units) in the aether ("vacuum") as written in (see text below given in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot--Savart_law#cite_ref-Griffiths_5-0 ) we can find

so - comparing these two expressions (from Wiki and in (1) above we find

Continuing in the p. 41 one can find:

"Magnetic field $\QTR{bf}{H}_{q}$ maximum in the plane perpendicular to the motion of the particle, and is equal in this cross-section

If the particle has a magnetic dipole moment $\QTR{bf}{m}$ , then around of particle creates a dipole magnetic field, which is equal to

Our comments: These expressions (1) - (3) are not correct for the real electron or photon's particles and that are approximations for PMCS "particles" in MHL electrodynamics.

In p. 42 author continues in the same QM additives mode (Principle of the Superposition of States):

"Along the axis of the dipole the strength of magnetic dipole field is ( $2\mu /r^{3}$ ), where $\mu$ $=|\QTR{bf}{m}|$ - the absolute value of the magnetic moment of the particle. In a direction perpendicular to dipole's main axis

"The total magnetic field of a moving particle with charge and magnetic moment $\QTR{bf}{m}$ is given by

Our comments: That additive way is only be applicable when the particles taken as PMCS "particles" while generally it is not true as worked out many times in HSP (2nd physics) and in places not of QM application.

Our comments: Extremely important is the delivering (or reminding about) a group of facts about the structure of electron as a 3D complex form volumetric particle with the rotation, and surficial dynamics as of a Electromagnetic body (volume) [16-24,27-30,39].

In still p. 42 author continues:

"As the distance from the particle $\QTR{bf}{H}_{s}$ decays as $1/r^{3}$ , a current sensing magnetic field decreases as $1/r^{2}$ , there is a characteristic length $L_{v}$ , where the values {}{}of these fields are compared. When comparing the current magnetic field (2) and the dipole field (4) that they are at a distance $L_{v}$ "

Continuing in p. 43 author arguing that:

"of the particle

At distances $\ll L_{v}$ from magnetic particle the field mainly determined by the magnetic moment of the particle, i.e. it has dipole character (see (3) and Fig. 1b). At distances $\gg L_{v}$ the magnetic field behaves like a field of moving charged particle, i.e., determined by the Biot-Savart law for a moving charge (see (1) and Fig. 1a). "

Our comments: Now we can state that the formula (6) is the kind of mythical formula as long as - 1) everything for formulation of (6) is obtained on the base of PMCS electron "particle;"

2) used the MHL electrodynamics with the approximate "solutions" - that are of QM and PMCS electron conjectures;

3) other incorrect features in this imaginable QM based treatment of important problem we made avilable in the notes about - "The Difference Between the Quantum Trajectory Mechanics of Particles (QTM) (by Vikhrev) and HSP (2nd physics) 1- and 2-scale Mechanics of Sub-atomic Particles."

In p. 43 author continues:

" At distances $\sim L_{v}$ magnetic field configuration is quite complex and the magnetic field (5) of the moving particle depends on the direction of the dipole $\QTR{bf}{m}$ , and the velocity of a moving particle $\QTR{bf}{v}$ .

The characteristic length $L_{v}$ plays an important role in the configuration of the electromagnetic field for moving the charged particles with a magnetic moment. It depends on the ratio of the magnetic dipole moment of the particle to its charge (the index emphasizes the dependence $L_{v}$ on the velocity of the particles). Length $L_{v}$ specifies both periodic and non-periodic structure of the magnetic field of a moving particle. "

Our comments: We need to understand and remember that all of this - like analytical study on foundations of Classical Mechanics and QM combined methods is based on the grounds of silently accepting the QM, TR, and MHL Homogeneous electrodynamics concepts, assumptions and approximate results, solutions for the PMCS "particles," [20-23,35].

Including and the claim of Superposition Principle for everything in the problem? Which is greatly exaggerating mode of COH Particle physics, QM.

Those are the dead-end of COH physics - as we forced to watch this for ~95 years.

We will be carefully analyzing these and close issues while consider other two papers of the same author.

Our comments: After p. 43 on pages 46 - 52 author does interesting calculations and only conclusions should be taken into account with regard of the incorrectness' in the model - that have been discussed above in our comments.

=====================================================

(2008) Vikhrev, V.V., (2008)

Vikhrev, V.V., "The Behavior of Particles on the Basis of a Microcosm Laws of Classical Physics," in "The Search of Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches and Concepts," (Vol. 6), Geo publ., Novosibirsk, pp. 80-93, (2008) (in Russian)

ABSTRACT:

"We consider the classical description of the behavior of the microcosm particles , the foundations of which have been developed on the basis of M. Gryzinski and his discovery of radial kinetics of atomic electrons. This description is based on the account of the mechanical and magnetic moments of particles in the framework of classical physics. It is shown that the spin flip in the transverse magnetic field for the particles leads to quantum transitions with radiation."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this paper author tries to explain the sub-atomic particles behavior in the space dynamics with "the account of the mechanical and magnetic moments of the particles in the framework of classical physics."

This statement to a large degree is over exaggeration of the real COHP picture regarding the classical physics and this claim for the use of, or even merging QM and really wrong with single-scale dynamic formulation problems and mechanics of still PMCS (point-mass-charge-spin) sub-atomic "particles" like electrons.

The Second Newton law says: The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: F = ma.

Just at the beginning - in page 81 author states the false, QM based suggestion as the following:

"It can be assumed that some of the particles of the microworld have their own mechanical and magnetic moments are not related to the nature of particle motion along a path."

Our comment: Author says: "that some of the particles of the microworld have their own mechanical and magnetic moments are not related to the nature of particle motion along a path."

Independent moments - not related to the dynamics of particle itself! How is that? It is an immediate outcome of the QM based the way of thinking - everything should be taken apart for furter linear simplified treatment. They apply this mode to everythind of sub-atomic scale. And this is also done for eliminating any 2-nd phase of immediate interaction and transfer, transport of action between the particles - the aether. Then, nobody needs the intermediate substance - the aether. Accordingly - this is the incorrect conjecture.

In page 82 author starts to formulate the better, more complete momentum governing equations following the Newton 2nd law (as usual) written as

"where $\QTR{bf}{v}$ - the speed of the particle, $\QTR{bf}{F}_{q}$ - the force acting on the particle due to the presence of her electric charge q, $\QTR{bf}{F}_{\mu }$ - the force acting on the particle due to the presence of its magnetic moment $\QTR{bf}{\mu }$ , $\QTR{bf}{f}_{q}$ - radiation reaction force due to the presence in it of the charge q, and $\QTR{bf}{f}_{\mu }$ - radiation reaction force due to the presence of the particle's magnetic moment $\QTR{bf}{\mu }$ ."

In page 83 author continues:

where $\QTR{bf}{E}$ - is the electric field in the coordinate system moving with the particle, $\QTR{bf}{E}_{0}$ and $\QTR{bf}{H}_{0}$ - external to the particle strength of electric and magnetic fields in the laboratory system. Radiation reaction force of moving charge $\QTR{bf}{f}_{q}$ is determined by the derivative of the acceleration of particles (see, for example, [6]): "

Our comments: Meaning that here the electric field $\QTR{bf}{E}$ ( $\QTR{bf}{E}$ - is the electric field in the coordinate system moving with the particle) considered seriously that it is (?)

According to Lorentz formula (in SI) the force on particle $q_{1}$ by the EM fields of the second particle is

Then - Where are these $\QTR{bf}{E}_{0}$ and $\QTR{bf}{H}_{0}$ taken? In the midst of a cloud of electromagnetic sources? Come on.

In the Lorentz force formula - should be used as the assessed, averaged fields on the base of all the charges, but $q_{1}.$

Because in COHP there is no techniques for averaging - so, to have the kind of the general averaged field as for the "second" charge field(s) - this formula (4) should have operations as the averaging together with the whole equation (1) - but this procedure COH physics cannot do.

Where the real external fields are substututed by imaginable, assigned conjectural $\ \QTR{bf}{E}_{0}$ and $\QTR{bf}{H}_{0}$ .

Do COHP physicists think that these fake $\QTR{bf}{E}_{0}$ and $\QTR{bf}{H}_{0}$ fields can be the results of real modeling and simulation of the cloud of EM particles? They don't believe in this - they don't believe in this themselves.

An array of ordered electrons in dynamics. To theorize and model this array the COHP methods are artificial, so the modeling of particles swarm in particle accelerators is pretty simplified, while dynamics equations are incorrect - see our analyses in this text, as well as published other texts, papers in relevant chapters-sections in this website (references below) and elsewhere.

In page 83 author writes:

"Radiation reaction force for moving charge $f_{q}$ is determined by the derivative of the acceleration of the particle (see., in [6]):"

Our comments: Deliberation of $\QTR{bf}{f}_{q}$ force (5) is done on the base of considering COHP PMCS (point-mass-charge-spin) "particles."

This formula (5) is the source of physical theory information that is taken from the text of the former most powerful physics science gatekeeper in the RAS system and in the USSR science, and because of that it can go along only of COHP line of thinking. And it is wrong with the deliberation - of course it is the formulation obtained without any trace of the intermedium - the aether.

By the way - more correct will be to say - that the $\QTR{bf}{f}_{q}$ (radiation reaction force) is the consequence of emitting or absorbing a photon(s) !

Not as written in here in the paper - that the $\QTR{bf}{f}_{q}$ (radiation reaction force) is caused because it is the quality of a charge ?

Also, by the way - where this force $\QTR{bf}{f}_{q}$ (radiation reaction force) is coming from ?

After reaction of charge with/on/because of What? Might be with the aether.

In this way the photons leaving or absorbing by the electron (particle) give to electron the radiation reaction force $\QTR{bf}{f}_{q}.$

Our comments: Deliberation of the force $\QTR{bf}{f}_{q}$ (radiation reaction force) is provided without accounting of photon(s) action in a collision with the particle (electron, for example).

In page 83 continuation author writes:

"The strength of $\QTR{bf}{F}_{\mu }$ (a force acting on the particle due to the presence of its magnetic moment $\QTR{bf}{\mu }$ ) is obtained by taking into account in the Lagrangian of additional energy of a magnetic dipole at its location in a magnetic field $\QTR{bf}{H}$ "

In page 83 continuation author writes:

"where $\QTR{bf}{H}$ - is the magnetic field (strength of) in the coordinate system moving with the particle"

here author wants that the external field to be

Our comments: that means that the same trick as with the Lorentz force (4) in this formula (7) was used for assigning the magnetic strength field

Meanwhile - this is the very approximate conjecture derived based on the moving particle magnetic field as ( the sign (-) in front of the second term is taken as

because it is subtracted from the mythical external particle magnetic field?

Also generally according to ( Vikhrev, 2004) should be

( Vikhrev, 2004) the explanation of this as - (in p.41)

Our comments to ? : Who needs this sum ? Moving particles Plus this one? Nobody. But the most important is that all these tricks with the re-assigning of the coordinate systems made with the direct purpose to avoid the consideration of methods of theorizing and modeling, simulation of the $\QTR{bf}{H}_{0}$ as the averaged fields of a number, an array of particles - that in COHP are no other method as to apply the Superposition Principle.

Author writes about summation of both magnetic fields that gives the total this is the famous QM [21] - "2. Principle of the Superposition of States.

Any microscopic system (i.e., an atom, molecule, or particle) in a given state can be regarded as being partly in each of two or more other states. In other words, any state can be regarded as a superposition of two or more other states. Such superpositions can be performed in an infinite number of different ways."

What is this external magnetic field $\QTR{bf}{H}_{0}?$

Do you know how it is generated (is the result of other charges also)?

That means - not the plain summation of charges, but actual integration of fields in the Heterogeneous bodies, media. That COHP cannot provide - because there is no mathematics and Heterogeneous physics in COHP exist [10-24,27-30,35].

In page 83 continuation author writes:

"According to (8) accounting of (6) a Lagrange function leads to a force

Besides gradient of energy of magnetic dipole in a magnetic field there is a so-called magnetodynamic force . This force arises in accordance with (8) by differentiating (6) with accounting (7) for speed. The equations of motion of a particle with the dynamic forces are, for example, given in [7,8]."

Our comments: Deliberation of $\QTR{bf}{F}_{\mu }$ force is done on the base of considering COHP QM for the PMCS "particles."

While this is unacceptable - because introduces too simplified physical and mathematical models for a very complicated and complex to believe particle of electron as the PMCS "particles" with all consecutive treatment it again as in the QM and HOPP (Homogeneous One-scale Particle Physics) that we know brought in for the ~90 years inadequate picture and physics of the sub-atomic world.

At the same time, when accepting an electron (and other PMCS "particles") as the volumetric physical entities with their internal structure and physical properties of at least known in physics (at the beginning of XXI) phenomena as of - Continuum Mechanics (which is the much better and gives more exact physical description of physical processes as we know for the last ~170-180 years, then the Classical Mechanics of Point-particles) fluid-like, Heterogeneous possible, solid-like, elastic, with internal Electromagnetism (many things support this conjecture - because externally an electron is the EM properties having object), medium with the wave dynamics Internally, having exchange with the aether via external boundaries-surfaces, having internal transformation and exchange before and after absorbing and emitting the photons (!), having possible Internal exchange with the unknown so far substance, etc. Why not? We don't know the internal features and generally - What is the electron?

Then - all these constructions of "like" forces as - in (1) are just the imaginable imitating using QM and HOPP (HOMOGENEOUS One-scale Particle Physics) constructs, without good physics ground, for conjectural mathematical physics. The last one $f_{\mu }$ even doesn't have the QM and HOPP model at all [33]. Vihkrev (2008)

Also - as we observe the way of introductions of these possible forces - it is completely based on the QM and HOPP, which we agreed is no more justifiable and productive, correct, if you don't like previous definitions, classification, path for obtaining mathematical models for physically observed experimental facts about physically volumetric not the point sub-atomic particles. And don't even start to talk about "non-observables".

Nevertheless, it is believed and delivered in [1,2,22,27-30] (my works with electrons and CF) that the HSP physical and mathematical models for the like, similar to the forces can be developed standing on the physical ground of Volumetric Sub-Atomic Particles (VSAP).

Besides, it is interesting and have many applications in HSP of Continuum Mechanics, that the Scaled Heterogeneous (as in the nature) constructions, models for physical media with their physical processes already have given many additional mostly known, but partially not, physical phenomena that are not known to participate in the Homogeneous One-scale Continuum Mechanics sciences, disciplines [1,2,12,17-19,27,28-30,36,37].

In p. 84:

" Some difficulties arise with the definition of force $\QTR{bf}{f}_{\mu }$ . If you do not take into account the motion of the particle, the force $\QTR{bf}{f}_{\mu }$ is zero, and the radiation friction associated with a change in direction of the magnetic dipole, the change affects only the moment of inertia of particles [6] (Ginsburg, 1987).

In the case of motion of a particle at the same time changing the direction of the magnetic moment of the particle radiation recoil force $\QTR{bf}{f}_{\mu }$ is not zero. Unfortunately, this force has not yet been calculated. )"

Our comments : Symptomatic statement about Unavailability of the $\QTR{bf}{f}_{\mu }$ (radiation reaction force) and by the way - here and everywhere there is always the "radiation" and "electromagnetic radiation". At the meantime - in COHP they do not elucidate - What is the "radiation" and "electromagnetic radiation" more specifically ? And we would come to the particles, isn't it?

Also, What is the radiation friction ? Exactly?

In p. 84 one can find:

"1.1 Motion of an Electron in the Field of a Charge

The most well-known problem, which directly relates to the use of the expanded classical mechanics, this problem is of the motion of an electron in an electric field of a point ("POINT" - allocation by us) charge Q. The Lagrange function of the electron ( $m=m_{e},q=-e,$ ) has the form

Our comments: In deliberation of any feature or model in COH atomic physics, QM and COH Particle Physics are heavily dependable on either Lagrangian or Hamiltonian for the great simplifications (and wrong presentations) that are not deliberately specified for a "cloud," array of PMCS's.

This is the simplifying physical issue in the problem and makes it easier to model and simulate (see in our deliberations [20-30], and other manuscripts) solve as soon as in the first half of XX there had been the crucial obstacles - we remember that there were no advanced numerical mathematics and NO COMPUTERS. All physicists should go simulate by hand and on the paper sheets the numerical approximations. They liked this method of approximation and like this technique up to now - writing the Lagrangians and Hamiltonians in a great numbers for any sub-atomic task.

In p. 84 :

"The potential energy of a magnetic dipole in an electromagnetic field

In the laboratory frame for fixed point charge

Therefore

Our comments: Well, first of all - the proton is not the standing still charge, but the rotating (spinning) particle with both the electric and magnetic fields!

That is actually eliminates this simplified theoretical model for the electromagnetic fields (field influence) of proton as of a PMCS "particle".

In p. 84 still:

"One of the approximations to describe the behavior of the spin is a rigid rotor approximation [1-4]. It is valid for a short time until the spin has no time to turn around because of the varying fields around it. "

Our comments: Well - quantum COH physics workers use any trick to say that there are no physical particles, physical volume occupied by the particle - but any kind of imagination instead.

Thus is and in this above excerpt - at the meantime, it is obvious tht because COHP hasn't the structural model for sub-atomic particles - then there is no choice, but select the rigid rotor approximation for a particle.

In p. 84 still:

"In the spherical coordinate system centered on the charge Lagrange function for the electron, which has a magnetic moment directed along the axis , has the form

Our comments: Well, we mentioned for numerous times that the use of Lagrangians and Hamiltonians is the sign of helplessness of COHP which is the result of inability to accept and consider something of more meaningful and reasonable physical objects than the PMCS "particles".

In p. 86 one can find:

"3. The quantum nature of the projection of the spin of the particle in the direction of the magnetic field

The magnetic field generated by the spin of a particle is described by expression (see (7.64) in [6, p. 161])

When placed in an external magnetic dipole field is formed $\QTR{bf}{H}_{0}$ total magnetic field ."

Our comments: Here for spinning particle is given the COHP formula with implication of great mathematical tool Dirac's delta-function. The tool exactly created for the One-scale physics [20-24] as it was imagined in 1920-30s.

Oh, that is interesting - Why the author considers this as the Quantum action - the "projection of the spin of the particle in the direction of the magnetic field"?

Author writes about summation of both magnetic fields that the total this is the famous QM [21] - "2. Principle of the Superposition of States.

Well - this is great hidden advantages and approximation at the same time, in theory - when workers saying - We do and know, and take into the theory only "the linear and potential kind of interactions, states." Great simplification - not of the 2nd physics and not to be with the Classical Mechanics within the 2nd physics [1,2,15,22-24,26-30].

If to accept this - "2. Principle of the Superposition of States" to any physical field, discipline, then, at least, half of the physics and technologies problems could be solved at once!

In p. 90 one can read:

"5. Trajectory quantum mechanics

Application of expanded classical mechanics for describing physical phenomena quite difficult. This is due to the fact that in the mechanical motion of each particle must be described in 10-dimensional space. However, often it is possible to simplify the description of the particle trajectory.

This is achieved, for example, by reducing the description of particle dynamics in the space of smaller dimension. One possible simplification of the description is based on the fact that the direction of spin in the slowly varying external fields directed along the magnetic field or against it.

The behavior of the particles in this case is described in the space of seven coordinates: the three spatial coordinates, the three speeds and the spin projection on the magnetic field direction."

Our comments:

Well - this is the sample of the COHP One Scale way of thinking - Why they would think that the only way out of description of the particle as the small body - is via the L.Euler introduced system of Hard Body Rotation (or Euler's equations for rigid body dynamics) - and as such have at least 4 more space coordinates - 2 for angles and 2 for acceleration of the angle's speeds ?

Autonomous (independent) dynamics of a particle meaning in this specific context of moving electron - that the electron is the Rigid Body? If we apply the dynamics of L.Euler for electron's body. Who said this first and why?

Meanwhile, the acceptance of the Lower scale space (or totally of the Two-scale space description of physical phenomena - as they are existing in a simplified reality of the two scales (the scales involved are of more number) [1,2,10-30, etc.]) will immediately involve the 6 or even 7 new coordinates for dynamics of a single (autonomous) body-particle.

Those are - 6 coordinates as in COHP Mechanics of dynamics of a particle (time is not taken as a coordinate for a while) and plus the 3 space coordinates and 3 velocity within the matter of a particle (fluid-(or gaseous)-like or elastic, condensed or hard solid-like) with the strict relationship between the scale physical phenomena.

Totally the 12 coordinates to control the dynamics of a single particle on the Lower Scale The only way to maintain this theory, modeling and simulation is via the HS physics, the 2nd physics tools.

Continuation in p. 90 :

"This mechanic is essentially a classical mechanics based on quantum spin direction of the particles. Therefore, it can be called the quantum trajectory mechanics of particles. In this mechanics assumed that the motion of particles in response to the movement of the radiation power is equal to zero, i.e. neglected classic reaction of radiation, and in the equation (1) . As a result, the momentum change in the trajectory quantum mechanics described by

that is with given in (4) and (9) has the form "

Our comments: Oh, that is the Classical Mechanics (CM) somehow of XVIII, but not even of the second half of XXth and of XXI. Between both CM(XVIII) and CM(XXI) is a great difference already, they are not the same.

Well, it is seen that here the COHP worker wants to use any means to connect the QM to the quite different thing in physics - to the physics of sub-atomic "particle"- one only "particle," still of PMCS qualities, dynamics where there is no needs to talk and take into account the QM - because the direction of particle's (real volumetric, extended as some physicists might say) spin vector and spinning of these "particles" are controlled and governed by their HSP [20-24,16-19,28-30,etc.] governing equations.

That's no need to remember about QM in this dynamics. While the interaction is via the "nothing" - no medium of interaction. So, interaction of particles is going throughout the "nothing" with some EM constants. And no interaction phenomena - apart of Coulomb and Lorentz formulae and might be the EM fields in vacuum0. But What are the EM fields and EM "waves" here in a "vacuum"?

There is no need to talk about "quantum direction of spin" (?) as soon as this direction, direction of the spin is controlled, governed by the aether dynamics and surrounding of other particles EM fields, in an array of particles or in an array of atoms, or both - those are indeed through the aether have interaction with this "the particle" EM fields.

"that is with given in (4) and (9) has the form

where $\QTR{bf}{H}$ - is a magnetic field (7) in a coordinate system moving with the particle. It is assumed that during the motion of a particle of its magnetic moment is directed in the direction of the magnetic field or against it: "

Equations (33) and (2) together with (7) and (34) define a system equations of motion for the particles within the trajectory quantum mechanics.

During the motion of a particle trajectory can coups her back to her in an external magnetic field. These upheavals back, if you do not take into account the strong excitation of the electromagnetic field can be derived from the upper energy state of the electron spin into the lower state."

Our comments: What does it mean - that here in this set of equations the EM governing equations are lost and lost on purpose. Pretending that the solutions for a separate particle exist.

Also - if there is no EM governing equations for a separate electron (particle) and definitely won't be a correct averaged ("external" in COHP) EM governing equations - then, unquestionably won't be the described the mechanism of flip-flop of the electron on a motion.

Other our general remarks regarding this series of good intention papers of the same author (not specifically seleted; if anyone would suggest the similar COHP-to-2nd physics studies - we will be appreciated), but still based on the QM assumptions and conjectures we write down in this - "Particle Physics 2. Fundamentals" section and in others.

=======================================================

Vikhrev, V.V., "Description of the wave properties of particles by means of laws of classical physics," in "The Search of Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches and Concepts," (Vol. 7), Geo publ., Novosibirsk, pp. 110-123, (2010) (in Russian)

Vikhrev, V.V., (2010)

ABSTRACT

"The description of the scattering of electrons and neutrons in the collision of multiple charges, based on the laws of classical physics. Analyzed in detail the wave properties of electrons in their reflection on the surface of the crystals of nickel. It is shown that the electrons and neutrons in the field of multiple charges having onle the certain energy are mirrored by those charges. The result is a dispersion, such an interference, and in both cases it is with good accuracy satisfies the law of Bragg. The wave properties of neutrons are explained by the laws of classical physics, if you take into account the interaction of the magnetic moments of the neutrons with electric and magnetic fields, which are the particles of crystals."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this paper author tried to consider the wave behavior of some electron's related phenomena while applying the techniques that named after the Classical Physics Laws. We've already serviced for the two previous papers of the same author with analysis and decoding texts for the procedures that named as of Classical Physics - still in reality are heavily dependent on the same QM techniques developed for microscale world for already near 90 years.

Nevertheless, the problem author study in this paper is very important. The methods used that are imbued with the spirit and content of QM and COH physics are in the area of our discussion and analysis.

In p. 112 one can find that:

" We analyze the trajectory of the electrons assuming the given point charges on the surface of the crystal. For this we consider the motion of charged particles in a plane on which electric charges are located and which is perpendicular to the crystal surface. The equation of motion of the electron in the electric field E of these charges is as follows:

where $\QTR{bf}{V}$ is the velocity, the charge, and $m_{e}$ is the electron's mass. The electric field of the system of charges equal to the sum of the electric field made by each of them

Our comments: The equation and physical statement itself is obviously incorrect. This is the classical substitution of definitions in COHP and use of the "Great" Superposition Principle. The left hand side of the equation is written for a separate particle. The right hand force term is the ubiquitous "saveŕ" of QM and generally COHP - in the cases (those are overhelming quantity) of general accumulative, integration nature. Because in COHP there is no accepted mathematics and physical methods for averaging in Heterogeneous problems, media.

We have numerous remarks on this substitution in this manuscript and great number of examples in others [28-30,17-19,1,2].

Our comments : Klyushin [39] in p. 20-21 gives the formula for $\QTR{bf}{E}$ for a one charge $q_{2}$ that is (in SI):

In p. 114 one can find that the important for education Fig. 3

Fig-3-Vikhrev-2010

" Fig. 3. Model for instant reflection of electrons from the equipotential surface."

Our comments: A good educational figure to let students understand the difference between the instant - straight lines, and the EM based reflection (scattering) of a particle - here by the straight plane surface imitating the spatial Heterogeneous distribution of the charge.

Fig-4-Vikhrev-2010

" Fig. 4. The equipotential surfaces of the two charges, which are arranged at an angle of 45 \

to the electron beam, and a schematic reflection of electrons from the surface of the potentials

of an electron energy: Less than of resonant (a), equal to the resonant (b), is greater than

resonant (s). "

Our comments: Only the 2 (two) particles in reflecting EM field and you know Why?

Yes, because in COHP there is no methods and techniques to average, correctly average the Heterogeneous media and fields in them.

In p. 116 one can find that:

Fig-5-Vikhrev 2010

" Fig. 5. Trajectories and angular distributions of electrons reflected from the two negative

unit charges are arranged at an angle \ 60 (a) and \ 30 (b) to the incident

electrons at energies of 36 eV resonance (a) and 86 eV (b). The distance between the charges 0.144 nm."

In p. 117 one can find that:

Fig-7-Vikhrev-2010

" Fig. 7. Trajectories and angular distribution of the electrons reflected by a system of three

single negative charge, which are arranged in a plane at an angle of \ 45 to vapor

giving electrons at an electron energy of 45 eV. The distance between the charges 0.144 nm."

In p. 118 one can find that:

Fig-8-Vikhrev-2010

" Fig. 8. The trajectories and the angular distribution of the electrons reflected by a system of two single negative charge, which are located at twice the distance between them (0.288 nm) at an electron energy of 45 eV."

Our comments: With account all of the above mentioned imbalances in the mathematical statement of the problem: nevertheless, it can be said that the qualitative closeness to the scattering of electrons on the two electrons barrier under the angle 45 $^{\circ }$ might be examined.

Our comments: Figs. 5,7,8 give the interesting details of scattering schematics (in one plaine surface are the incoming and reflecting particles) of reflected electrons upon impinging on the two- and three only the same negative charge particles (electrons).

In p. 119 one can find that:

"To describe the motion of the particle with the magnetic moment we use the equation obtained for this purpose in [10]:

Here $\QTR{bf}{v}$ , $\QTR{bf}{r}$ , , $\QTR{bf}{\mu }$ speed, the radius vector, the charge and the magnetic moment of a particle, $\QTR{bf}{E}$ and $\QTR{bf}{H}_{0}$ electric and magnetic fields (from external sources for particle) in the laboratory frame, $\QTR{bf}{H}$ is magnetic field strength (from external sources) in the coordinate system of the particle, $\QTR{bf}{H=}$ . "

While according to ( Vikhrev, 2004) should be

Our comments: Author wants here (p. 119) to write his conjectures using both the "Superposition Principle" and SR presenting the magnetic fields as the mix of - $\QTR{bf}{E}$ and $\QTR{bf}{H}_{0}$ and again $\QTR{bf}{H=}$

Here used the very useful for simplification - and actual false physical and mathematical statement, author presents the strength of the external field as just the constans $\QTR{bf}{H}_{0}$ and $\QTR{bf}{E}$ (written for a purpose as $\QTR{bf}{E},$ but not $\QTR{bf}{E}_{0}(?)$ or $\QTR{bf}{E}_{q})$ - while for any particle each of the neighbour particle is the external field and they are at least inhomogeneous. Then he uses the summation of the constant fields - the simplest approach justified in QM and justified false fully.

In p. 119 continuation one can find:

" For a neutral particle , which does not change in the time direction

its magnetic moment, and in the absence of a magnetic field $\QTR{bf}{H}_{0}$ this equation

It is written in the form of

In this equation, the electric field $\QTR{bf}{E}$ is determined via the several charges expression (2). "

Our comments: The force field is modeled with wrong initial conjectures - so, the force field is not correct here.

In p. 119 continuation one can find:

"In contrast to the motion of charged particles, the velocity of the neutral particles does not change during this reflection. This is due to the fact that the force acting on the particle is always perpendicular to the direction of its movement. "

Our comments: Can we repeat - the force field is modeled with the wrong initial conjectures - so, the force field is not correct here.

In p. 119 continuation one can find:

"Fig. 9 shows the trajectory of the particles at three different speeds in the fall on the two charges at an angle of 45 $^{\circ }$ . Beneath each figure shows the final angular distribution of the particles (the initial time all the particles moving at an angle of 0 $^{\circ }$ ). Fig. 9b shows the results at a rate which is resonant for this case. If speed is less than the resonant reflection occurs in a wide-angle (Fig. 9a) and at a speed higher than the resonance occurs split the reflected beam (Fig. 9c). "

Our comments: The results of modeling of this problem are interesting indeed. To consider the results' as this we need at first to remind about the initial statement imbalances for both electron and neutron particles.

Our most Important comments for this paper: This is the Problem of the problems - its correct statement should be developed as within the 2nd physics HSP - while its solutions - should be many, will be saluted as one of the substantial achievements in 2nd physics.

Summary of this Semi-classical Approach for the PMCS "Particles" by V.V.Vikhrev (2010):

Imbalances of the initial statements for dynamics of electron and neutron are -

1) Of course we need to say that the particles are taken as the Point-Mass--Charge-Spin (PMCS) objects, not as the volumetric (extended) particles [19-23].

2) The force fields are assessed as in COHP QM and MHL electrodynamics with all related imbalances [1,2,16-30,35] and in these 3 paper remarks, not correct.

3) This is not correct the morphological 3D locations and distributions of particles. And not only of the 2D approach, but due to the inability of COHP to make the statements as of and with the Local-Nonlocal momentum and Electrodynamics governing equations. That they don't know - What is it at all? [1,2,20,35,17-19].

4) The MHL electrodynamics is the approximate imbalanced electrodynamics and needs to be replaced in these 2nd physics advanced groundbreaking sub-atomic models theory [17-19,27-30].

5) The features of interconnections for particles-wave phenomena are hidden in COHP and in this the 3rd paper (2010), because the physical and mathematical theory and models for the multiple particles dynamics are the Polyscale(2 at least)-Polyphase(two at least) matter and thus should be considered [1,2,15-30].

6) Well, the role of the aether as the most important of all media and in this paper as well, should be articulated and provided in the theories and models [20,22,23,28-30].

"The Difference Between the Quantum Trajectory Mechanics of PMCS "Particles" (QTM) (by V.V. Vikhrev) and HSP (2nd physics) 1- and 2-scale Mechanics of Sub-atomic Particles"

1) First of all in QTM particles are the PMCS "particles" - not the volumetric, spatially extended particles.

2) The MHL electrodynamics that used in QTM is the additive QM's Principle of the Superposition of States (which is the simplification of even MHL electrodynamics [16-20, etc.]. While in HSP is the applied Galilean Electrodynamics of Klyushin (GEK) [38-40].

3) There is no intermedium between the particles in QTM and interaction happened to be throughout the "nothing" that named in QM the quantum vacuum, while in HSP Mechanics of Sub-atomic Particles is used the aether as the intermedium for the particles interactions. With modeling governing equations for the aether's media - not nesessarily being of a one phase medium, feasible to be the polyphase Heterogeneous (likely) medium [1,2,17-20, 35,etc.].

4) The Lorentz one side particle force used in QTM for the two particles interaction, while the two moving particles electrodynamic interaction used in the HSP Mechanics of Sub-atomic Particles [17-20,22,23,27-30,35].

5) The pretty unphysical method of substitution of the whole array of particles interaction by the artificial introduction of the definition of the External fields ( $\QTR{bf}{E}_{0},$ $\QTR{bf}{H}_{0},$ etc.) with the following full mode use of these fields as the legitimate physically introduced part of the problem's physical and mathematical statements. While in reality it is the false fully introduced "averaged" fields acting in the problem with the consecutive application of the Principle of Superposition - with the full understanding that this is the defective mathematical method. That means, this substitution of the impact, interaction of the modeled particle with the array of other similar particles or "objects" is the plain evidence of inability of mathematical methods used in COHP for averaging of models, governing equations that model each and every particle dynamics participation in the total dynamics of an array of particles in the problem considered [10-23,27-30,35].

6) There is even not the full statement One-scale governing equations used in QTM, while in HSP Mechanics of Sub-atomic Particles is used at least the two-scale three-phase (or more) models and statements [10-12,14-23,28-30,35-37,4].

7) The additinal forces in the right hand side of the momentum equation in QTM derived (not all of them) on the base of accepted interaction existance of an array of PMCS "particles" of XVIII-XIX Classical Mechanics - have the shaky ground - this Principle of Superposition which is not valid for interconnected fields.

While the additional forces set up in the HSP momentum mechanics (and not only of momentum) equations have the two-scale, at least, physical phenomena forces derived as for Heterogeneous Media and Processes interacting in these media [1,2,28-30] - which is the real physical picture. That is the statement that the whole Particles and Nuclear Physics are just about Heterogeneous Scaled Media and Processes in these media.

8) All these - $\QTR{bf}{F}_{q}$ - the force acting on the particle due to the presence of it electric charge q, $\QTR{bf}{F}_{\mu }$ - the force acting on the particle due to the presence of its magnetic moment $\QTR{bf}{\mu }$ , $\QTR{bf}{f}_{q}$ - radiation reaction force due to the presence of the charge in it , and $\QTR{bf}{f}_{\mu }$ - radiation reaction force due to the presence of the particle's magnetic moment $\mu$ , are not specifically should be the linear additive forces in the right hand side of the momentum equations for a "generalized" particle (1), (34)

where $\ K$ is the number of supposed to act in the problem forces.

The matter is that the electron as a particle, as a subject unit (a single even particle) has at the same time the nonlinearly acting volumetric and surficial electromagnetic and momentum fields and forces - mutually internally undevided [27-30,1,2].

That means - when we present those forces - without knowledge of their attributes, their characteristics, their interdependence we can do the QM Principle of Superposition, but it is commonly the too simplifying and incorrect presentation - linear presentation. Meanwhile, the linear phenomena and processes are linear as an approximation - most of the nature's phenomena are NONLINEAR, and physicists know about this.

As the example, let's take the photon when is emitting from or absorbing by the electron - it is the act of a pretty short time work, so to speak it is the pulsation nonlinear force.

9) The local formation of principles of creation of governing momentum equation for any (each) separate particle that acting (moving) in the cloud of particles and just corresponds to the 2-nd law of Newton is known.

It is with adding (addition) any (most, may be) of reasonable physical effects by additional term in the right hand side of the equation for a separate particle.

Meanwhile, the physical properties model for the electron's body (volume) not necessarily should be of a "rigid" body model, but rather can be of fluid-like, elastic-like(?), or an aether sub-phase-like (aether has a polyphase structure) substance [10,12,27-30,1,2].

That means the additive linear model of the acting forces (additivity property of the Principle of Superposition for the problem) and/or phenomena in any scale problem in COHP is generally impaired, in fault, incorrect [17-19,28-30,35,44-57].

For example, as soon as the best structural model for an electron so far is the model suggested by Ph.M.Kanarev [44-57], which is the separate 3D body with complicated dynamics itself - that means the forces introduced in the dynamics equation for the electron not necessarily should consist of linear additive terms (constructed on the fundament of the COHP theories for "particles" as of PMCS nature) - but can be of quite other mathematical expressions.

10) Regarding the attempt to present the just one-scale Homogeneous QM based treatment of particulate problems as the one that based on the Averaged (Integrated) general techniques (HSP similar) - and in these problems with particles those are, almost any of them, (like in the few papers we discussing here about) of PMCS nature - is the scientific fraud that researchers in COH physics are accustomed to do for ~90 years [1,2,10-30,35-37,41-42,58-59,61-81].

That is the scientific fraud as is - and public should know about this. We don't blame specifically this or other one-two-three authors - still, it is the general COHP shameful practices in this 3-rd stage of any breakthrough innovation ("All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer ) making intrusion with the wrong COH mathematics and physics into the areas of 2nd physics [21,30].

======================================================

Conclusions on the Analysis of ~1950 - 2015 General Physics (and Classical XVIII-XX) Applications to Atomic and Particle Physics

It is naturally understandable and of greeting that the common language physics methods, tools constantly are being applied toward Atomic, Particle and other small sub-atomic scales fields in physics.

Eventually, the pretty solid arguments exist as the precautions measure against too direct and the only COHP methods of these classical, semi -, and pseudo-classical methods, approaches, techniques that have been suggested for theoretical physics of the small sub-atomic scales.

Among them Should be mentioned the following:

1) No one Pseudo-Classical Approach (PCA) (pseudo- because the particles still are taken as the PMCS' (point-mass-charge-spin) objects and/or other obvious initial physical data have been screwed or adjusted in a favor of claimant's hypothesis) or method of treatment of sub-atomic physics issues does include the Heterogeneity of the Sub-Atomic world [1,2,16-29].

Researchers just do not have a special education and knowledge base from those polyphase Continuous Mechanics (and Media) sciences.

2) No one PCA accepts or suggests the aether's inclusion as of a major phase (actually the first phase) in the physics of sub-atomic world. Meaning - that along with the particular phase (at least one) should be included and considered at least one of the sub-phases of the aether [20-23].

3) No one PCA theory, but HSP (Hierarchical Scaled Physics) considers simultaneously the extended (volumetric) nature, subject of the sub-atomic particles dynamics and at the same time - the Heterogeneous mathematics and polyphase theory for dynamics of sub-atomic problems [15,1,2,16-29].

For example, of real volumetric subjects of particular phase, aether, their collective interaction and dynamics mathematical models, equations for that [28-30]. Not talking about the solution of that kind of tasks.

4) There is no one approach, method (apart of HS physics) in PCA for two or more scale polyphase sub-atomic particular media problems statement or solution of either.

The Homogeneous One-scale MD is the wrong mathematically method, tool. It does incorrect mathematical operations, in particular incorrect averaging and bulk operations [36,37].

5) No one PCA theory (even of Gryzinski) includes any two Volumetric particles collision mechanisms and mathematical theory for this. Only HS physics does this, but that is not a PCA.

6) No one PCA theory in "classical" mechanics of sub-atomic particles includes the electrodynamics physics for two- or more phase particles media with the aether(within the aether), as an intermedium [15,1,2,16-19,28,29].

7) No one PCA theory of "classical" dynamics of sub-atomic particles (but HSP) and atoms includes better than the Lorentz force formula into the one- or more scale analysis and dynamics governing equations.

It is of common knowledge now - that the Lorentz force formula is not the good one, but actually specifically simplified one particle force formula [17-19,28,29,38-40]. So, can be said that the Lorentz force formula is not known for its reverse impact on the particles dynamics in general.

8) There are the number of special form interactions between and within the cloud of particles [1,2] (and more in the electrodynamic and gravidynamic form interactions [16-21,28,29-30]) in the aether as well as of between the aether and particles themselves that are lost and unknown in COHP and PCA for consideration and modeling.

While COHP professionals even do not suspect how many physical effects they lost in the period between 1920-2015 while have been forced to imagine some of them?

9) Because of the incorrect objects and their models had been accepted as for an electron and proton - there were incorrect unstructured models for these particles and as the results were taken incorrect models for movements of electrons in the atom and unstructured models for a nucleus and atom's itself in studies of M.Gryzinski [1,2,20-27,43-57].

We won't discuss the neutron ad-hoc model by Gryzinski so far, untill the further analysis and discussions give clarification.

10) Because of the abolishing of the aether and of the One-scale Homogeneous structure and model for a substance (no aether) there were incorrect particle dynamic equations in the Classical Atomic Mechanics of Gryzinski (CAMG) theory even for the Lower scale modeling governing equations [1,2,15,17-19,22,23,28].

11) Because of the incorrect structured and other features of the sub-atomic particles in the semi-classical atomic theory of M.Gryzinski there are the incredible trajectories and dynamics of electrons in atoms in Gryzinski's theory and consequently the incorrect atomic dynamics in this theory [18-24,44-57].

12) Structured volumetric - not PMCS' physical and mathematical models for electron, proton, and neutron also accept the radial movements (dynamics) of electrons - still namely radial [22-23,28-30].

13) The two-particles collision theory of M.Gryzinski includes as the elements of the theory still the point-mass-charge-spin (PMCS) particles. That means the particles are the same non-physical point-masses of XVIII classical mechanics.

In this situation, of course, the only way was the acceptance of the statistical mechanics approach and methods. With all the setbacks of statistical mechanics treating the physical subjects [26].

14) Because the protons and electrons in Atomic physics of M.Gryzinski are altogether the structureless particles - there are no ways to build the structure (even the correct one) of nuclei, and consequently the structure of atoms, molecules, and electrons dynamics [20,22-24,44-57].

15) It needs to be pointed out that in the all achievements that were demonstrated in studies of M.Gryzinski the methods and tools were used of COHP. To say this means that the One-scale Homogeneous understanding and methods were used in the procedures and mathematics [15,1,2,14-16,20-24].

It's not strange from the one side - as long as there were no readily available methods of HS physics at the time 1960s - 80s that could be implied in the atomic physics research.

16) On the other hand - the fields of atomic, particle physics research is naturally should be the areas of implication of Heterogeneous, Hierarchical Scaled physics [16-30].

That means the whole body of Classical Atomic Mechanics of Gryzinski (CAMG) should be prolonged and continued on the base of the 3P HS physics as similar to that the other sciences in physics and other technologies have been the subjects of HS transformation so far to this moment.

17) Eventually, all the problems stated and solved in the Atomic Mechanics of Gryzinski (AMG) type part of Atomic 2 of the 2nd Physics should be re-formulated and solved in terms of Heterogeneous Scaled media and processes - as for the two- or more phases presented in the volume (including the aether), with more correct interparticle electrodynamic (not electrostatic Coulomb and not of Lorentz formulae) forces and, of course, with the Galilean Electrodynamics of Klyushin - most correct at this moment in XXI so far [15,1,2,16-19,38-40].

As with the volumetric acting in a volume structure based - not the PMCS (point-mass-charge-spin), particles with their volumetric and surface (surficial) related momentum and electromagnetic dynamics in the aether [17-24].

As for, at least, the Two Scale Heterogeneous Hierarchical physical processes of momentum and electrodynamic transport governing equations - not the Hamiltonians based always potential type equations [19-21,27-30,35-37], etc., etc.

Acknowledgements :

We would like to sincerely express our acknowledgment to T.J.Champion for the support in providing this work.

References:

1. Travkin, V.S., "What Classical Mechanics of XVIII Provided in XX Has Done Wrong to the Base of Mechanical Science Including the Classical Mechanics of Continuum Particles and Conventional Orthodox Homogeneous Particle Physics", http://travkin-hspt.com/rottors/classmechwrong/classmechwrong.htm, (2014)

2. Travkin, V.S.,"The Major Forces Have Been Missing From Governing Equations for Dynamics of Sub-atomic and Continuum Particles, Bodies in XVIII - XX ", http://travkin-hspt.com/rottors/forcemissing/forcemissing.htm, (2014)

3. Mills, R. L.,"Classical Quantum Mechanics", Physics Essays, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 433-498, (2003)

4. Mills, R. L.,"The Fallacy of Feynman's Argument on the Stability of the Hydrogen Atom According to Quantum Mechanics", submitted; posted at http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypapers/Fallacy_Feynmans_Argument_030705.pdf, (2003)

5. Gryzinski, M., The Atom Deal , Homo-Sapiens, Warsaw, (2002) (in Polish)

6. Gryzinski, M., On Atom Precisely. 7 Lectures on Atomic Physics, in Proc. V-th Siberian Interdisciplinary Conference on Mathematical Problems of Physics Space-Time Complex Systems (STP-2004), Iss. 1, Novosibirsk, (2004) 93p. (in Russian)

7. Lavrentiev, M.M., "Ad Disputandum," in The Search Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches, Concepts, (Vol. 2), Novosibirsk, pp. 3-15, (2004) (in Russian)

8. Yeganova, I.A., "Atomic Physics of Gryzinski and the Main Purpose of the Conference Physics SpaceTime - PST," in The Search Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches, Concepts, (Vol. 7), pp. 18-36, (2006) (in Russian)

9. Somsikov, V.M.,"Structured Particles Mechanics and Geometry", in The Search Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches, Concepts, (Vol. 7), pp. 132-144, (2010) (in Russian)

10. Travkin, V.S., Fundamentals of Hierarchical Scaled Physics (HSP-VAT). Description of Transport and Phenomena in Heterogeneous and Scaled Media http://travkin-hspt.com/fundament/index.htm. (2003)

11. Travkin, V.S. and Catton, I., Transport Phenomena in Heterogeneous Media Based on Volume Averaging Theory, in Advances in Heat Transfer, Vol. 34, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-144, (2001)

12. Travkin, V.S., Continuum Mechanics of Heterogeneous (Ht) Media; Elasticity, Plasticity, http://travkin-hspt.com/elastic/index.htm, (2005)

13. Travkin, V.S. and Catton, I., "Porous Media Transport Descriptions - Non-Local, Linear and Nonlinear Against Effective Thermal/Fluid Properties," in Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, Vol. 76-77, pp. 389-443, (1998)

14. Travkin, V.S., "Why is it Different from Homogeneous and other Theories and Methods of Heterogeneous Media Mechanics/(other Sciences) Description?" http://travkin-hspt.com/fundament/03.htm, (2002)

15. Travkin, V.S., "Reductionism and/versus Holism in Physics and Biology - are Both Defective Concepts without Scaleportation," http://travkin-hspt.com/fundament/scaleport/scaleport.htm, (2004)

16. Travkin, V.S., "Solid State Plasma Models," http://travkin-hspt.com/atom/01.htm, (2006)

17. Travkin, V.S., What's Wrong with the Pseudo-Averaging Used in Textbooks on Atomic Physics and Electrodynamics for Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz Electromagnetism Equations, http://travkin-hspt.com/eldyn/maxdown/maxdown.htm, (2009)

18. Travkin, V.S., Incompatibility of Maxwell-Lorentz Electrodynamics Equations at Atomic and Continuum Scales, http://travkin-hspt.com/eldyn/incompat/incompat.htm, (2009)

19. Travkin, V.S., Electrodynamics 2 - Elements 3P (Polyphase-Polyscale-Polyphysics), http://travkin-hspt.com/eldyn2/index.htm, (2013)

Sull', S.A., The Origins and Misconceptions in Relativism. Looking Through the Century, http://lib100.com/book/other/collection_s/_ The Origins and Misconceptions in Relativism. Looking Through the Century , (2006) (in Russian)

The Origins and Misconceptions in Relativism. Looking Through the Century

20. Travkin, V.S.,"Torsion" or Spinning (Rotation) Physics Scaled (SPS), http://travkin-hspt.com/rottors/index.htm, (2013-2014)

21. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N., "The Classical and Sub-Atomic Physics are the Same Physics," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys/pdf/51_PrAtEd-QM-Ref-2HSPT.pdf, (2013)

22. Travkin, V.S., Particle Physics - Heterogeneous Polyscale Collectively Interactive, http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys/index.htm, (2011)

23. Travkin, V.S., Particle Physics (Particle Physics 2). Fundamentals, http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/index.htm, (2013)

24. Travkin, V.S., Nuclear Physics Structured. Introduction, http://travkin-hspt.com/nuc/index.htm, (2006-2013)

25. Travkin, V.S., Experimental Science in Heterogeneous Media, http://travkin-hspt.com/exscience/index.htm, (2005)

26. Travkin, V.S., Statistical Mechanics Homogeneous for Point Particles. What Objects it Articulates? http://travkin-hspt.com/statmech/index.htm, (2014)

27. Travkin, V.S., Solid State Polyscale Physics. Fundamentals, http://travkin-hspt.com/solphys/index.htm, (2014)

28. Travkin, V.S., "Two-Scale Three-Phase Regular and Irregular Shape Charged Particles (Electrons, Photons) Movement in MHL Electromagnetic Fields in a Vacuum0 (Aether)," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/abstracts/twoparticlesshort-ab.htm, (2013)

29. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N., "Two-Scale Two-Phase Formation of Charged 3D Continuum Particles - Sphere and Cube From Electrons in a Vacuum0 (Aether). An Example of Scaleportation of Charge from the Sub-Atomic to Continuum Charged Particles, Conventional MD Cannot be Applied," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/abstracts/subtocontin-ab.htm, (2013)

30. Travkin, V.S., "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Hierarchical Processes in the E-Cat Nuclear Reactor. Physics 2 ," http://travkin-hspt.com/coldlenr/ecathier1/ecathier1-ab.htm, (2012-2013)

31. Yeganova, I.A., "Theoretical Physics: Pygmalion Syndrome," in The Search of Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches and Concepts, Vol. 6, Geo publ., Novosibirsk, pp. 94-103, (2008) (in Russian)

32. Vikhrev, V.V., "The Magnetic Field Configuration of Moving Electrons," in The Search of Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches and Concepts, Vol. 2, Geo publ., Novosibirsk, pp. 39-53, (2004) (in Russian)

33. Vikhrev, V.V., "The Behavior of Particles on the Basis of a Microcosm Laws of Classical Physics," in The Search of Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches and Concepts, Vol. 6, Geo publ., Novosibirsk, pp. 80-93, (2008) (in Russian)

34. Vikhrev, V.V., "Description of the Wave Properties of Particles by Means of Laws of Classical Physics," in The Search of Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches and Concepts, Vol. 7, Geo publ., Novosibirsk, pp. 110-123, (2010) (in Russian)

35. Travkin, V.S., "What is the Particle Physics Now?" http://www.travkin-hspt.com/parphys/whatispp/whatispp.htm , (2011)

36. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N., "Quantum Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Molecular Dynamics Simulation, DFT (Density Functional Theory), and Coarse-Graining Techniques Applied in Structural, Cellular Biology, Polymer Science and Implication for Scaleportation," Journal of Alternative Energy and Ecology, No. 2, pp. 58-75, (2011a)

"Quantum Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Molecular Dynamics Simulation, DFT (Density Functional Theory), and Coarse-Graining Techniques Applied in Structural, Cellular Biology, Polymer Science and Implication for Scaleportation"(757K)

37. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N., "Pseudo-Scaled and Scaled Description and Scaleportation of Inorganic and Organic Polymer and Polymer Composites Properties," Journal of Alternative Energy and Ecology, No. 1, pp. 62-77, (2011b)

"Pseudo-Scaled and Scaled Description and Scaleportation of Inorganic and Organic Polymer and Polymer Composites Properties"(818K)

38. Klyushin, J. G., "Field Generalization for Lorentz Force Formula," Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 11, No 5, (2000)

39. Klyushin, J. G., Some Fundamental Problems of Electro - and Gravidynamics, St. Petersburg, RF, (2007)

40. Klyushin, J. G., Electricity, Gravity, Heat - Another View, St. Petersburg, RF, (2012)

41. Travkin, V.S., "What is in use in Continuum Mechanics of Heterogeneous Media as of Through ~1950 - 2005?" http://www.travkin-hspt.com/elastic/whatsupf/whatsup.htm;, (2005-2006)

42. Travkin, V.S., "Who Are in the Continuum Mechanics Continuing to Dwell in an Ivory Tower? Who Tries to Re-Invent the Wheel? What Are the Damage and Financial Loss?" http://www.travkin-hspt.com/elastic/ivorytower/ivorytower.htm, (2006)

43. Whittaker, E.T., A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity: The Classical Theories, Thomas Nelson and Sons, (1958); A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, from the Age of Descartes to the Close of the Nineteenth Century, 1910 (1953); A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity: Part I, the Classical Theories & Part II, the Modern Theories, Two Volumes, American Institute of Physics, 808 pgs., (1986); A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity.The Classical Theories, R&C Dynamics, Izhevsk, (2001), (in Russian)

44. Kanarev, Ph.M., "What do Maxwell's Equations Describe? 3rd Lecture on Unity Axiom," http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Lectures", Krasnodar, 21p., retrieved 05/05/2013

45. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Errors of Maxwell and Hertz. 6th New Lecture on Unity Axiom," http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Lectures", retrieved 05/05/2013

46. Kanarev, Ph.M., "The Transfer of Information in the Space. 7th New Lecture on Unity Axiom," http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Lectures", retrieved 05/05/2013

47. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Model of the Electron," Apeiron, Vol. 7, No. 3-4, pp. 184-194, (2000)

48. Kanarev, Ph.M., "A Model for the Free Electron," Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 13, No. S1, pp. 15-18, (2002)

49. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Electrons in Atom," Journal of Theoretics, Vol.4-4, pp. - , (2002)

50. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Modelling the Photon and Analyzing Its Electromagnetic and Physical Nature ," Journal of Theoretics, Vol.4-1, pp. 1-12, (2002)

51. Kanarev, Ph.M., Photon, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Books"; retrieved 05/05/2013

52. Kanarev, Ph.M., Nuclei of Atoms, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Books"; retrieved 05/05/2013

53. Kanarev, Ph.M., Answers to Microworld Questions, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Answers"; retrieved 05/05/2013

54. Kanarev, Ph.M., Introduction to New Electrodynamics, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Books"; retrieved 05/05/2013

55. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Orthodox Knowledge and New Knowledge," http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/index.html; (2013)

56. Kanarev, Ph.M., The Foundations of Physchemistry of Microworld, the 15th edition, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Monographs"; (2013)

57. Kanarev, Ph.M., Crisis of Theoretical Physics, second ed., Krasnodar, (1997) (in Russian)

58. Travkin, V.S., "Structure and Types of Hydrogen and Oxygen Atoms and Their Heavy Isotopes," http://www.travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/hydrooxyatoms/hydrooxyatoms.htm, (2014)

59. Travkin, V.S., "3P Water, Heavy Water Molecules, Deuterium, Tritium Collective Interaction-1," http://www.travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/watmolsinter/watmolsinter.htm, (2014)

60. Travkin, V.S., Hierarchical Scaled Physics and Technologies, http://www.travkin-hspt.com/index.htm, (2002-2015)

61. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N., How not to Scale-Down...or -Up.. .. Analysis of Current Studies on Scaled, Collective Phenomena in Biology Fields Presented as the One-Scale Concepts, http://www.travkin-hspt.com/bio/biopapersop.htm, (2007)

62. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N., "The Tool Biologists Have Been Craving For Does Exist. The Issue Is Who Can Use It?", http://www.travkin-hspt.com/bio/thetool/thetool.htm, (2009)

63. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N.,"Principles, Biological and Mathematical Modeling For Elasticity, Poroelasticity of Soft Biomedia, Polymers with Fluids Mechanics in the Bioporous Two-scale Media," http://www.travkin-hspt.com/biophysics/poroelastic/poroelastic.htm.htm, (2004-2009)

64. Travkin, V.S.,Analysis of Current Studies on Scaled, Collective Phenomena in Medicine Fields Presented as the One-Scale Concepts , http://www.travkin-hspt.com/med/medpapers/medpapers.htm, (2002-2013)

65. Travkin, V.S., Scattering Modeling in Optics using One Scale , http://www.travkin-hspt.com/optics/optscattering.htm, (2003-2008)

66. Travkin, V.S., Fluid Mechanics , http://www.travkin-hspt.com/fluid/index.htm, (2002-2015)

67. Travkin, V.S., Thermal Physics , http://www.travkin-hspt.com/thermph/index.htm, (2002-2015)

68. Travkin, V.S.,"Homogeneous Mathematical Schemes for Heterogeneous Multiphase Fluids - 14 Years After 1998 Analysis and Criticism," http://travkin-hspt.com/fluid/homofluids2012/homofluids2012.htm, (2012)

69. Travkin, V.S., Few Aspects of Acoustics in Heterogeneous Media, http://travkin-hspt.com/acoustics/right.htm, (2006)

70. Travkin, V.S., "Scattering Modeling in Acoustics Using One Scale," http://travkin-hspt.com/fluid/homofluids2012/homofluids2012.htm, (2007)

71. Travkin, V.S., Linear Acousto-Elasticity in Porous Medium, http://travkin-hspt.com/acoustics/02.htm, (2007)

72. Travkin, V.S., "More of Acoustics in Heterogeneous Media Current Work Reviews," http://travkin-hspt.com/acoustics/litreview.htm, (2008)

73. Travkin, V.S., "Bridging atomic and macroscopic scales for materials, process, and device design. US-Russian Workshop on Software Development (SWN2003)," http://travkin-hspt.com/atom/SWN2003.htm, (2003)

74. Travkin, V.S., "Critical Technologies One Scale Genuinely Restricted," http://travkin-hspt.com/nanotech/critical.htm, (2007)

75. Travkin, V.S., "Bottom-Up or Top-Down Design and Modeling," http://travkin-hspt.com/nanotech/botdown1.htm, (2007)

76. Travkin, V.S., Nuclear Energy, Polyscale Polyphase Structure of Heat Generation and HEx in LWR and HGCR. HtHr Modeling, http://travkin-hspt.com/nuclearen/right.htm, (2008)

77. Travkin, V.S., Optics - Nonlinear Electrodynamics, Second Harmonic Generation, and Scaling Approach, http://travkin-hspt.com/optics/right.htm, (2006)

78. Travkin, V.S., Modeling and Averaging in Meteorology of Heterogeneous Domains - Follow-up the NATO PST.ASI.980064, http://travkin-hspt.com/urbp/meteoaver.htm, (2004)

79. Travkin, V.S., Experiments, Experimental Data Reduction and Analysis; Numerical Experiment (Simulation) Data Mining, http://travkin-hspt.com/urbp/exper.htm, (2004)

80. Travkin, V.S.,Atomic and Subatomic Physics 2 - Elements 3P, http://travkin-hspt.com/atom2/index.htm, (2003-2015)

81. Sull', S.A., The Origins and Misconceptions in Relativism. Looking Through the Century, http://lib100.com/book/other/collection_s/_ The Origins and Misconceptions in Relativism. Looking Through the Century , (2006) (in Russian)

The Origins and Misconceptions in Relativism. Looking Through the Century

===========================================================

These are not well known problems, because of decades COHP studies in the mode of Homogeneous fields they (these tasks) couldn't be stated in any correct form - still can not be resolved within the Homogeneous One-Scale General physics, Spinning physics, nuclear, particle and atomic physics, electromagnetism, Gravidynamics and astrophysics.

Why not? Because everything is interconnected and exchanging. There is no really Closed System or Volume.

Classical Mechanics Attempts for Description of Atomic Physics (ClM One-scale One-phase Homogeneous Physics - ClMO2HP) Phenomena

Pseudo-Classical Approaches (PCA) (pseudo- because the particles still are taken as the PMCS' (point-mass-charge-spin) objects and/or other obvious initial physical data have been screwed or adjusted in a favor of claimant's hypothesis)

======================================================

Somsikov, V.M., " Structured Particles Mechanics and Geometry," in The Search Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches, Concepts, (Vol. 7), pp. 132-144, (2010)

A theoretical study of the first law of thermodynamics. "

In p. 132 of this paper author starts with explanation of - irreversibility of the dynamics of systems of structured particles:

In p. 133 of this paper author continue to formulate: :

In p. 133 of this paper one can find that:

In p. 134 one can find that:

Summary of this Semi-classical Approach for the Structured "Particles" by Somsikov, V. M. (2010):

======================================================

32. Vikhrev, V.V., "The Magnetic Field Configuration of Moving Electrons," in The Search Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches, Concepts, (Vol. 2), pp. 39-53, Novosibirsk, (2004) (in Russian)

In p. 41 of this paper one can find that:

Superposition Principle in COHP (QM etc.):

- which is not true and which is the fantastic writings.

Superposition Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

In the same p. 41 one can find further that:

Continuing in the p. 41 one can find:

In p. 42 author continues in the same QM additives mode (Principle of the Superposition of States):

In still p. 42 author continues:

Continuing in p. 43 author arguing that:

In p. 43 author continues:

=====================================================

(2008) Vikhrev, V.V., (2008)

Vikhrev, V.V., "The Behavior of Particles on the Basis of a Microcosm Laws of Classical Physics," in "The Search of Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches and Concepts," (Vol. 6), Geo publ., Novosibirsk, pp. 80-93, (2008) (in Russian)

The Second Newton law says: The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: F = ma.

Just at the beginning - in page 81 author states the false, QM based suggestion as the following:

In page 82 author starts to formulate the better, more complete momentum governing equations following the Newton 2nd law (as usual) written as

In page 83 author continues:

In page 83 author writes:

In page 83 continuation author writes:

In page 83 continuation author writes:

In p. 84:

In p. 84 one can find:

"1.1 Motion of an Electron in the Field of a Charge

In p. 84 :

In p. 84 still:

In p. 84 still:

In p. 86 one can find:

In p. 90 one can read:

Continuation in p. 90 :

=======================================================

Vikhrev, V.V., "Description of the wave properties of particles by means of laws of classical physics," in "The Search of Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches and Concepts," (Vol. 7), Geo publ., Novosibirsk, pp. 110-123, (2010) (in Russian)

Vikhrev, V.V., (2010)

In p. 112 one can find that:

In p. 114 one can find that the important for education Fig. 3

In p. 116 one can find that:

In p. 117 one can find that:

In p. 118 one can find that:

In p. 119 one can find that:

In p. 119 continuation one can find:

In p. 119 continuation one can find:

In p. 119 continuation one can find:

Summary of this Semi-classical Approach for the PMCS "Particles" by V.V.Vikhrev (2010):

Imbalances of the initial statements for dynamics of electron and neutron are -

"The Difference Between the Quantum Trajectory Mechanics of PMCS "Particles" (QTM) (by V.V. Vikhrev) and HSP (2nd physics) 1- and 2-scale Mechanics of Sub-atomic Particles"

======================================================

Conclusions on the Analysis of ~1950 - 2015 General Physics (and Classical XVIII-XX) Applications to Atomic and Particle Physics

Acknowledgements :

References:

UNDER CONTINUAL DEVELOPMENT