elas

Just as a graph of Earth's gravity field cannot be used to deduce the presence of individual atoms so the graphs you quote cannot be used to discern the internal structure of proton and neutron; take a look at the chapter on quarks in The Particle Explosion by Frank Close, Michael Marten, and Christine Sutton.

Try to reverse the question, 'how can infinity not exist' that is to say if it were possible to travel through space in a straight line (no curvature) what could bring infinity to an end? Is it not remarkable that 4000 years ago scholars in northen India were taught that infinity was an endless field of universes, 3000 years ago people were told (in the Book of Mary) that God created only seven of the many universes that exists (we are number 3), but we then quickly settled for one universe, but cannot explain how or why. Lee Smolin (The Trouble With Physics) does mention that there is a minority in favour of an infinite number of real (i.e 3 dimensional) universes, but as he is writing on QT it is only mentioned in one sentence. We seem to have lost our ability to think big, but mathematically the percentage of our universe occupied by one electron is greater than the percentage of infinity occupied by one universe; it is our insignificance in the big (i.e. infinite) picture that permits our existence: the universe is a mere pimple in infinity here today, gone tomorrow. Nothing is more natural.

In The Elements by John Emsley there appears the following in the description of most Rare Earths: "...of the so-called Rare Earth group (more correctly termed the lanthanides [or actinides])" Is there some doubt about the correct classification of the lanthides and actinides?

Much to my embarrassment I missed the great simplicity predicted by Newton even though it was blindingly obvious, the equation is: inner field fraction minus outer field fraction equals the periodic fraction the periodic fractions is so-called because this single column of fractions contains the periods in their correct order. A graph of this single column and the Table of Fractions is shown below. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged 1) No grant, but I have heard T shirt printing mentioned. 2) Is there any other classical mathematical theory that produces the periodic table and predicts the nature of the transuranium elements? 3)The link with Composite Fermion theory is intended to solve a problem of that theory; my work is classical physics and will stand alone without CF theory. PS Anyway, it's good to see you are still on your usual form! All I want now is a comment from insane alien to make my day complete.

Submission number 4 on my Periodic Table thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51884 Ended with a graph to illustrate the proposal that the proposed ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ electron fields were both situated in the outer half of a balanced atomic field, in order to do so it was necessary to use a secondary axis. The graphs below show that the secondary axis can be removed by multiplying ‘force times mass’ (Fm). In the Periodic Table graphs it is the innermost electron shell (excluding the nuclear shell) that follows the only undisturbed force line, this time it is again the innermost electron shell, which now follows the Fm line (top graph). The bottom graph shows all the sub-shell lines given in ‘The Elements' by John Emsley. The next step combines the Fm and EBE 2s scales by expressing EBE 2s as a percentage of Fm and compares the result with the number of neutrons for each atomic number; the result is a pairing similar to that found in the Periodic Table with one notable difference. By including a large number of elements that do not occur naturally, the Periodic Table creates a false (i.e. unnatural) pairing of the periods (2:3, 4:5, and 6:7), but the graph below being restricted to naturally occurring elements, shows how neutrons determine the true natural pairing by dividing period 6 into two groups of 16 elements each. Period 7 contains only those radioactive elements that compression has forced well away from both structure lines.

Not made clear in the foregoing is that both inner and outer electron fields are situated in the outer half of the atomic field as shown in the graph below. The next step is to use this proposal to show how neutrons are distributed in a balanced manner within the atomic nuclii. As that does not involve the use of fractions it will be the subject of a separate submission in the near future.

Lesson learnt; problem was that I thought that rearranging known data in a novel manner was not speculation, For example, I did not think that the periodic table published here was speculation because all the data used is experimentally proven and no different to the data used to support a number of unsatisfactory theories (see Scerri). The rest is of course speculation based on the re-arrangement. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFilling order Diversions from Madelung rule are dealt with more fully in diagram below. Which shows that 24Cr, 29Cu and 46Pd have one electron raised one level on the Inner 1 line, and one electron lowered one level on the Outer 4 line. 57La and 64Gd have one electron raised one level on the Outer 3 line. 78Pt and 79Au have one electron lowered one level on the Outer 4 line. 90Th has an electron raised two levels on the Outer 3 line. 89Ac, 91Pa, 92U, 93Np and 96Cm have one electron raised one level on the Outer 3 line. 110Ds and 111Rg have one electron lowered one level on the Outer 4 line and therefore are predicted to disagree with the Madelung rule. This leaves 41Nb, 42Mo and 43Tc which having one electron lowered one level on Outer 4 and should disagree with Madelung, but do not. It is suggested that where two theories have different sequences it is possible at some stage that an error of one sequence agrees with the correct sequence. 58Ce and 103Lr do have one electron raised one level on Outer 2 and Outer 3 respectively, but as this is part of a climbing sequence in both cases, it would be questionable to claim that as the cause of disagreement with Madelung. 19K, 37Rb, 55Cs, and 87Fr Being Alkaline Earths have one less outer electron than inner electrons and therefore one electron forced below the lower force line. Finally it should be noted that diversions from Madelung increase with increases in density; periods 1. 2 and 3 have no diversions, period 4 has 2 diversions, period 5 has 3 diversions, period 6 has 5 diversions and period 7 has 9 diversions. This proposal explains the cause of the diversions from the Madelung filling order by explaining how compression forces electrons into positions above or below their expected filling position.

Abstract The aim is to show how the 2-dimensional incompressible fractions of composite fermions theory can be found in 3-dimensional atomic structure and the result used to show the cause of the nature of the elements with supporting comments on electronegativity, electron filling order, and van der Waal’s radii. Introduction Two problems with current understanding are: 1) The problem of transferring two dimensional Composite Fermions theory into the three dimensional frame of the real world. Jainendra K. Jain[1] found that: ‘comparing Composite Fermions[1] theory with real life experiments also necessitates an inclusion of the effects of nonzero thickness of the electron wave function, Landau2 level mixing, and disorder, which are not as well understood as the FQHE3, and the accuracy of quantitative comparisons between theory and experiment is determined largely by the accuracy with which these effects can be incorporated into theory. At present, the quantitative agreement between theory and laboratory experiment is roughly within a factor of two, although a 10-20% agreement has been achieved in some cases1. We show that incompressible fractions of composite fermions can be found in the nonzero structure of atomic elements. 2) The second problem concerns the order in which the electron periods of atoms are filled. Dmitri Mendeleev[4] published the first periodic table (1869) based on the order of atomic weights (in rows) and the similarity of chemical properties (in columns), an arrangement that is still in use today. With the development of modern quantum mechanical theories of electron configurations within atoms, it became apparent that each row in the periodic table corresponded to the filling of a quantum period by electrons; however the current quantum filling explanation is open to question as detailed by Eric R. Scerri5. Scerri emphasises that Pauli’s Noble Prize-winning work6 does not provide a solution to the “closing of the periods” and that the filling order has never been derived from quantum mechanics. Scerri3 also points out that there are more than twenty exceptions to the Madelung rule[4] not all of which have been explained by subsequent theories. We do not propose an alternative theory, but will show what causes current filling order theories to fail. Internal and external compression External magnetic force compresses electrons in Fractional Quantum Hall Effect3 (FQHE) experiments; internal magnetic force compresses electrons within an atom. The difference between internal and external compression is illustrated in Fig.1 where the positive and negative fractions (black) of the incompressible fractions1 found in Composite Fermions1 experiments are shown together with the Internal Field electron (IFe) and Outer Field electron (OFe) fractions (colour) of the atomic periods; this shows that each Landau level1has a central fractional constant and that all atomic periodic fractions occur at the lower Landau level1. This brings together incompressible classical fractions and the quantum theory incompressible fractions of Composite Fermions[1], both classical and quantum theories being proven by experiment. Theory In Table 1 cols. 2-8 the electron shells (not the number of electrons) are divided in half and the number of electrons in each half is referred to as Inner Field electrons (IFe) and Outer Field electrons (OFe). This reveals that the number of IFe on each period is constant (1, 2, 6, 10, 19, 28 and 44) and the number of OFe on each period increases in a 1:1 ratio with the increase in the number of protons (Fig.2). The number of protons acting on each field is the same in both the inner and outer fields, therefore the magnetic compression fractions are found by dividing the number of IFe and OFe in each period, by the total number of protons in the nucleus (Table 1 cols. 9-12). In order to show a similarity with the approximate incompressible fractions of FQHE[3] experiments and Composite Fermions theory the Ife and OFe fractions are simplified to approximate atomic fractions, but it should be noted the exact fractions show that in all elements Inner Field Fraction (IFF) plus Outer Field Fraction (OFF) = 1±0; therefore the theory is non-perturbative and cannot be falsified2 Table of elements The periodic table below shows that within periods 2 to 7 the elements are sandwiched between Alkali and Alkaline Earths at the beginning and the Metalloids and Noble Gases at the end, we interpret that as ‘those elements whose nature is determined by greater internal (nuclear) force and those elements whose nature is determined by greater external force’ respectively. In between are those elements whose nature is determined by overlapping moderate level internal and external forces. The periodic table and Fig. 1 show that in periods 2, 4, and 6 the gap between the numbers of OFe repeated on the preceding and proceeding periods expands in the order 3:5:7 (Fig. 2:boxed in red). The Fig. 2 inset shows the number of OFe in col. (A) and the increase in the number of OFe in col. (B). The number of elements in each period is given in brackets with the increase in the number of elements in col. ©. This mathematical structure can be attributed to the existence of two opposing (internal and external) forces causing the pairing of non-nuclear periods seen in the periodic table. During formation periods 2, 4, and 6 (where the internal force is the major force) are subject to increasing force causing an expanding divide between the first two elements and the last two elements of each period. Periods 3, 5, and 7 where the constant external force is the major force there is no corresponding increase in the number of elements. Period force fields In the graphs below, electron numbers (Fig. 2) are replaced with IFe and OFe fractions to show how the nature of the elements is determined. There are four fractional sequences in both inner and outer field due to the division of the middle period in the odd numbered periods. Boxed on fractional sequence 1 of the outer field are: (A) 1H and 2He the first two electrons will be compressed to form the nuclear shell on all elements with higher atomic numbers. (B) The Alkali and Alkaline Earths. © The Metalloids, Other Metals and Non-Metals which change group with compression, and Halogens and Noble gases which retain their group on periods 2 – 7 inclusive. Boxed on fractional sequence 2 is found: (D) The Transitional Metals. On fractional sequence 3 is found: (E) The Lanthanides. (F) The Actinides. It is proposed that the unboxed fractions are responsible for changing the nature of the elements within each group of elements. Compression of the inner field electrons determines the length of each pair of periods as the electrons of each pair of periods reach the maximum incompressible fraction for each pair of periods on the lower Landau level. A composite fermium consists of an electron and a vortex, in order to explain why the fractions of atomic electrons occur on the same Landau level as some composite fermions; it is proposed that atomic electron are separated by vortices therefore atoms contain composite fermions. Electronegativity, Alkali Earths and Filling Order With the inner and outer fields in their natural overlapping position, the solid arrows the graph below mark the elements with the highest electronegativity values4 of each period, they precede the first overlapping pair with the highest combined fractional value on each period or, in the case of 9F the element with the highest single fractional value (dashed arrow). Alkali Earths (dashed boxes) have one less OFe than IFe allowing the nuclear force to compress one electron below the lower force line. Period’s 1-4 inclusive show that the Madelung rule5 breaks down in areas of high compression where electrons are forced below the lower force line (solid line boxes). 24Cr and 29Cu are unique in that a second electron is forced above the upper force line indicating that the outer force field of 24Cr and 29Cu is too weak to retain more than seven electrons. Calculated and van der Waals radii On Fig. 9 (A) marks the first element of each period and a peak in the van der Vaal’s radii. (B) marks the first low point of the van der Waal’s radii and occurs where each new force line crosses the lower force line. © marks the second van der Waal’s peak which occurs where two force lines are separated vertically, by one space (shown in triangles). Summary It has been shown that incompressible fractions can be produced from the known atomic structure and that atomic incompressible fractions occur on the lower Landau level. It has also been shown that the cause of the periodic table can be explained in terms of Atomic incompressible fractions. Additional comments hint at the possibility of using atomic incompressible fractions to explain Electronegativity, Alkali Earths, Filling Order and van der Waals radii. References [1] Composite Fermions, Jainendra K. Jain. Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN-978-0-521-86232-5 [2] Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, London; Routledge ane Keagan Paul, 1963. ISBN 0-415-28593-3 [4] E. Clementi, D.L.Raimondi,, W.P. Reinhardt (1967). "Atomic Screening Constants from SCF Functions. II. [5] Meek, Terry L.; Allen, Leland C. (2002). "Configuration irregularities: deviations from the Madelung rule and inversion of orbital energy levels". Chem. Phys. Lett. 362 (5-6): 362–64. doi:10.1016/S0009-2614(02)00919-3 [6] Landau, L. D.; E. M. Lifshitz (1977). Quantum Mechanics: Nonrelativistic Theory. Pergamon Press

Because the cross did not come into use in Christ's (Earthly) lifetime, The symbol of the early Christians was a fish. Christ carried a Roman cross to his crucification. The Rabbi were allowed to order death sentences, but only Romans were allowed to carry out the executions.

The dissapearing world: Ice Flows and Flamming Water - The last days of the Eskimos (Innuit) as hunter travellers. The last great Trek - The last annual trek of a tribe of sheep herders before the Shah of Iran ordered there slaughter to make way for the oil drillers. The Wind in the Rushes - Life in the marshes before Saddam ordered the marshes to be drained. Keep some tissues on hand!

If integral would delete the brackets and place the n in superscript it would get my vote (uncluttered and easy to print on a T-shirt).

I find that the classical electron radius is listed in the Particle Data Group Handbook on p217 and used in equations such as shown on p230 see: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/download/rpp-2008-booklet.pdf

A pdf on the foregoing with additional data, diagrams and tables can be found on: http://69.5.17.59/Frctnl Atmc Strctr.pdf

A bit blank, blows its own trumpet and does not obey the rules (notice in background); a wonderfully apt artistic representation of the current table. Thanks.

The reply quoted was deleted and replaced with a lengthier reply that I saw displayed on the SFN forum before switching off. It is my practice to do the reply using MS Word and delete the word programme once the reply has been posted. I will rewrite the correct reply as soon as possible. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That is why I used atomic structure (found by experiment) to show that the 'balanced field' approach is a valid approach. There is no experimental proof of particle radius, only experimental proof of particle electric radius, but MacGregor points out that atomic structure indicates that the electric radius is not the same as particle radius. As MacGregor shows the electric radius is point-like being the shortest of all the radii proposed for elctrons.

You have driven the debate around in a ful circle without realising that I have not used the classical electron radius, I have used the quantum mechanical Compton radius.That is to say that I have used an experimentally proven radius. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedswansont My objection was the use of the classical electron radius as a physical value, as it is a value derived from equating the electrostatic self-energy with the mass. In reality, the data are consistent with the electron being a point particle. The main thrust seems to be that if you take a number and divide it by a larger number, you get a fraction. elas is selectively quoting MacGregor; if you read the entire passage you'll see that he says that experiment confirms that the electron is indeed a million times smaller (at least) than the classical radius, and that as a result classical physics does not apply. The compton radius depends on the mass of the particle, and AFAIK the QM corrections to it are a constant, so it's not surprising that certain ratios give you a constant. 5/10 is the same as 3/6. OMG! MacGregor states: if the electron has a radius that is comparable to R(QMC), then we can quantitatively reproduce its basic properties in a classical context, which demonstrates that classical physics still applies in this domain. Although the electric charge of the electron, as viewed in scattering experiments, seems to be point-like, its manifestation in atomic bound states is not point-like. We have shown how the fractions derived from atomic compression of electrons are related to those found in magnetic compression of non-atomic electrons. We have shown that atomic structure and electron shell structure are founded on balanced force fields This justifies our claim that elementary particles are also balanced force fields as demonstrated in the table. It might seem that particles are point-like, but this, as indicated by MacGrergor; is only true of the electric radius it is not true of the magnetic radius or the QMC radius. Atomic structure proves that the electron is not point-like. The cause of the discrepencies between the various electron radii, is the failure to realise that all the various radii attributed to the electron can be explained using a balanced force field as shown in the graph in reply No.7 of this forum.

Not so because, as my table showed; for the elementary particle an increase in radius is matched by a decrease in mass.

That's not the only consequence. For a spherically symmetric object, the volume doesn't matter — that's a ramification of a 1/r^2 force (i.e. it's purely a mathematical phenomenon). Unless, as you claim, that G is different for different particles, which is at odds with LPI. I do not claim that G is different for different particles, I pointed out the possibility that mr=G/2 by which is meant to show that electromagnetic force and strong force are compactions of G force. I do realize that gravitation and relativity theories are classical theories, but I am also aware of attempts to produce a Quantum Gravity theory. By showing that fractions produced by so-called ‘two dimensional’ electromagnetic compression experiments are also produced naturally in three dimensional atomic structure, I am showing that QT (i.e. that part of QT devolved from FQHE) and classical theory (derived from atomic structure) produce the same fractional result, in fact classical theory does it to a greater degree of accuracy. By using compression fractions to show the structure of the elements I am using fractional quantities that we have shown to be both classical and quantum in origin; the intention being to make a start on the underlying structure that must not only describe quantum theory, but must also describe classical theory. Cause is essential to understanding; the lack of cause is not a failing of science; it is a failing of quantum theory. Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.

I cannot understand what time dilation has to do with the original point so I will try and explain my case in a different way as follows: Local position invariance dictates that gravity is the same, independent of the constituents of the mass. The challenge is to construct two bodies with the same gravitational force, mass, and volume, but with different number of elementary particles. My case rest on the claim that this is not possible. Perhaps QT can do this because it regards particles as point-like, but I have made a case that shows that particles have volume and justified this by showing how the density of particles in a given volume determines the force carried by the particle,( and in the case of atoms, the nature of the elements). This means that Newton was correct to suggest that the universe is “corpuscular in nature” and Einstein was right to insist on a classical explanation of the structure of nature. QT is brilliant at predicting actions, but it fails to explain cause. QT lacks the simplicity predicted by both Newton and Einstein because the simplicity lies in the structure itself and not in the actions of that structure. Structural simplicity is founded on showing that there is only one elementary particle and only one elementary force coupled with some (incomplete) evidence that suggests that nature repeats the same structural pattern in all compactions states.

The Cs-H maser comparisons show no correlation with variations in the solar potential, within an uncertainty that is about 30 times smaller than the previous most sensitive comparisons. http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2007.MAR.N32.2 The experimenters and their equipment are participants in the experiment in that all the force fields associated with planet Earth are enclosed within the solar G field; the enclosed planet Earth force fields expand and contract remaining in balance with the solar field: to observe changes in frequency the experimenters need to be outside the experiment.

If they go on sale I'll buy one.

Atomic Nuclei The force lines shown in the ‘Fractional Compression of Atomic Shells’ graph is shown in circular form in fig A below (i.e. atoms without nuclear particles, as in FQHE); each electron is paired with a nuclear proton that contains three elementary particles, therefore each proton has three times the fractional value of the elementary. Plotting the proton fractions (blue lines) and the electron fractions (red lines) in a single graph (Fig B below) shows how the nuclear force fields compress the weaker electron force fields against the atomic surface. Neutral particles do not have force fields and therefore can be treated as single particles for the purpose of finding a fractional value. The fractional value of neutrons is shown in magenta in the above graph. The sum of all fractions for those elements for which the data is available shows that as the number of particles increases, the atomic structure becomes more regular in form: A graph of the average fractional value of each shell reveals that the non-nuclear electron shell structure forms a shallow wave pattern on a force field line. An extension to the base line reveals that the force field is balanced with one half of the linear force either side of the point of maximum force (as previously shown for all elementary charged particles).

Atomic fractions Hall fractions are considered to be wave related, but within atoms the fractions are field related as shown by a graph of atomic shell fractions (below). As the number of electrons increase the shells are compressed along the force lines. Each peak marks the change from nuclear force dominance to external G force dominance. Where the nuclear force is equal or near to equal it is the external G force that determines the compression state; the superiority of the G force is explained in the opening submission on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46643 G force prevents particle and atomic collapse and ensures that all particles and atoms expand in unison with universal expansion. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe sum of all the fractions of an atom of each atomic element is 1 and the same approximate fraction can be repeated in a number of atoms; this makes it difficult to produce mathematical tables for different types of elements, but the following graph clearly shows the underlying fractional structure that decides the nature of the elements. Atoms of elements 1 and 2 have been omitted purely for reasons of scale. There is an error on Atomic No. 19 where the lower symbol has the wrong colour, will correct when time permits. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPS Error has been corrected Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI apologise for the muddled entries, unfortunately the edit button has vanished. The Transition metals were extracted from the last graph above and are shown (enlarged) below. The key changes to the shell force fields are circled (red) ande clearly show the compression of the transition metals and how the nature of the transition metals is determined. Similar patterns for other types of elements will follow. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe graph labelled ‘Fractional Compression of Atomic Shells’ Shows that Transition Metals only occur where the inner fields (lines from lower left to upper right) occur between the outer fields of shells 2 and 3. Rare Earths only occur where inner fields occur between the outer shells of shells 3 and 4. Non-metals and Alkaline Earths are the first two elements on shells 2-7; extracting Non-metals and Alkaline Earths from a graph of all fractions (graph A) shows that Non-metals and Alkaline Earths form a wave pattern on second shell force field (graph B). Similar wave patterns are visible elsewhere, these will be developed latter. Electrons of atoms of elements 1 and 2 appear on the same level because the nuclear shell is not complete until it has two electrons, therefore there is no difference in compression between the structures of elements 1and 2. (It could be said that atoms of element 1 are a two particle composite and atomic structure proper does not begin until the nucleus contains neutrons). Halogens, Other Metals, Metalloids, Alkali Earths and Noble Gases form the last 6 elements on all non-nuclear shells, this can be seen on the six graphs where the increase in compression in the final six elements of each shell is clearly apparent and the increase in compression caused by the increase in the number of shells causes a gradual change in the nature of the elements from the inside outwards. There are other avenues to be explored when time permits, for now one example only will be given: Of the Alkali Earths only one (3Li) reacts slowly with Oxygen, it is also the only Alkali Earth that does not have a fraction (i.e. electron) below the lowest force line suggesting that an electron inside the inner force field is the cause of increased oxygenation. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe simplest way to observe the basic atomic structure is to use the ‘Z’ pattern where the diagonal that runs from lower left to upper right is positioned as follows: A) For the first two elements (Alkali and Alkaline Earths) on each shell the lower horizontal line is missing. B) For the last six elements on each shell (Halogens, Other Metals, Metalloids, Alkali Earths and Noble Gases) the diagonal runs from shell 1 force line, up to the shell 2 force line. C) Between (A) and (B) the diagonal of Transition elements lies between shell 2 and 3 force lines. D) The diagonal for Rare Earths lies between shell 3 and shell 4 force lines. From this it can be proposed that Halogens, Other Metals, Metalloids, Alkali Earths and Noble Gases should be regarded as sub-groups of an unnamed group and that Alkali and Alkaline Earths are also sub-groups of a separate unnamed group. The correct position for 1H (an end group element) on a diagram of the elements is with the end group elements above 8O. Atomic construction begins with the nucleus, 1H and 2He are end group elements that is the end of a force field that starts within the nucleus.

At least a polite opinion but still no constructive criticism. When I first proposed explaining the structure of atomic elements using the same method I used to explain particle structure; I was asked why another Table of Elements was needed. I have replied to that question on this thread by showing that my proposed explanation of the existing table (not another table) can be used to connect atoms with the FQHE results and with Mott insulator results. This provides a conection with Quantum physics to a greater degree of accururacy than does the current explanation see: http://www.chem.ucla.edu/dept/Faculty/scerri/pdf/How_Good_is.pdf As far as I am aware no one has shown that atoms are constructed using (proton:electron) mesons or that there is a similarity between particle and atomic structure, but Newton wrote that it would be a matter of "great simplicity", my aim is to find that 'great simplicity'. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Pleasant dreams! elas the persecutor (I like that; it's original) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIn Chemical Education Today, (http://www.chem.ucla.edu/dept/Faculty/scerri/pdf/How_Good_is.pdf) Scerri writes: However, Pauli’s Nobel Prize-winning work did not provide a solution to the question which I shall call the “closing of the periods”—that is why the periods end, in the sense of achieving a full-shell configuration, at atomic numbers 2, 10, 18, 36, 54, and so forth. This is a separate question from the closing of the shells. For example, if the shells were to fill sequentially, Pauli’s scheme would predict that the second period should end with element number 28 or nickel, which of course it does not. Now, this feature is important in chemical education since it implies that quantum mechanics cannot strictly predict where chemical properties recur in the periodic table. It would seem that quantum mechanics does not fully explain the single most important aspect of the periodic table as far as general chemistry is concerned. The structure of atomic elements proposed on this forum points the way to a possible solution by showing that: In any two consecutive shells the number of elements with the same number of electrons in the outer shells are equal and that one shell in each pair of shells (2:3, 4:5 and 6:7) ends with 1/3 and 2/3 fractions. As the fractions are found by magnetic compression the same as the magnetic compression in Fractional Quantum Hall Experiments then the similarity can be said to be a Quantum similarity.