SciMann

Logic. Read the cited reference about how the new model fits the data without mathematical smoke (homophilic electrons - spin reversal). One would think that physics-mathematicians would want to see if other models worked that did not require "this" illogical bit needed to justify the current model!

The electronic structure went astray when everyone hopped on the Bohr bandwagon. Electrons are NOT likely to form spheres and xyz orbitals around a nucleus. Indeed, orthogonality is only applied within each level when it should be applied to all levels. Thus, the current model has lots of interpenetrating orbitals - why don't e's bump into one another? Why aren't the orbitals repulsing one another in the overlap regions? Scientists had a chance to select the correct "aerospace" model when they found it necessary to “hybridize” their orbital network to actually explain even simple molecules. They chose, however, to go their merry way and ignore the fact that their base model was all wrong. The hydrogen base model is NOT best described by a sphere, but rather a tetrahedron. Helium has two opposing tetrahedrons. This is why there are “lines of sight” from one He nucleus to the electrons of another and hence attraction. The model that does not have interpenetrating orbitals is the MCAS model. This model demonstrates that electrostatics is “the critical interaction” between atoms and that NO electron reversal is required. Indeed, e-reversal is most unlikely and doing the reversal without the expenditure of energy is “bad logic”. Readers are invited to read about the MCAS model application to molecules and reaction kinetics at this website: http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9902046 The MCAS model is also described in the book “Challenging Science”.