Vts

Didn't you, Swansont, called it "principle" also? See below: If you don't like word "we", I can rephrase as follows: "I guess, for some it would be surprising to find out how little is known about the inner workings of the atoms."

Are you implying that different natural phenomena can not have same underlying principle? In this case we are not even talking about completely different phenomena. We are talking about phenomena that happens to take place within an atomic structure and we are talking about some unknown underlying principle that somehow connects these phenomena with the tetrahedral sphere packing mathematical concept. Would it be so suprising to find out that one unifying principle governs such entities as electrons, protons and neutrons, within the atom? I guess, for some it would be surprising to find out how little we know about the inner workings of the atoms.

You know, that is the good question. We, humans, have DNA and plants have DNA also, that work on the same principle, and yet we are so different. How could it be?

That is incorrect. All periodic systems that I am familiar with are organized in accordance with Z. Spiral ones are not even broken into the periods. Others are. IUPAC Periodic Table is not organized in accordance with electron configuration. It happens to follow it for the first three rows. It is organized in accordance with Metallic/nonmetallic/inert properties. ADOMAH Periodic table is not organized in accordance with the electron configuration either, it is organized strictly in accordance with quantum numbers, which remain associated with Z even if electrons are removed.

John, I guess I failed to convince you that elements in the Periodic Table are listed in the order of the atomic number Z, that is in accordance with the number of protons located within the nuclei. If you are saying that it is not true that Madelung rule resembles the tetrahedral sphere packing and that nuclear magic numbers 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126 can not be derived through tetrahedral sphere packing also (that was clearly explained in one of my previous posts), then you are denying the obvious. Sorry, I have no choice but to disagree with you even if it brings your wrath towards me.

Well, this is how science has always worked. First it was Mendeleev with his "crazy" idea of periodicity, that was dismissed by the most scientists for many years, than it was "crazy" planetary model of atom and then came Neils Bohr with his "crazy" model of the atom with electrons performing quantum jumping without any plausible explanation, than it was Pauli, who looked at the Periodic table and came up with his Exclusion principle while trying to explain why numbers are 2, 8, 18, 32... and not 1, 4, 9 and 16. They were ideas based on intuition and coincidences that many regarded as weak. Until ADOMAH PT and tetrahedron no one could say with any degree of certainty why periods are 2, 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32... and not 2, 8, 18, 32, 50, 72..., and why Madelung rule follows slanted lines, and not horizontal lines and why there are no known elements in shell 5g (corresponding to n=5, l=4)... And instead of praising my effort and the explanation that I provided I receive bunch of you know what from these guys. Go ahead ! Call it nonsense ! Dismiss it all ! Day will come when guys like you will be remembered as a bunch of you know who.

Well, I answered that question for you already: Because Madelung rule is happened to be the same as the tetrahedral sphere packing rule. And it is explained and demonstrated at http://www.perfectperiodictable.com on 3D Concept page. That is the fact and I can not understand your hostility towards it. If you disagree, just tell me how it is not. Others seems to like this idea (just look at previos post). I do not understand what point are you trying to make. Didn't I clearly state in one of my previous posts and on my web site that each element is defined by the Atomic Number Z? The Atomic number Z corresponds to the number of protons that happen to be in the nucleus. How is that that Periodic Table is indifferent to the nuclei? This is the most important requirement for the Periodic Table to follow atomic number Z and ADOMAH PT follows this requirement strictly. Isotopes differ by number of neutrons, which do not affect the placement of the elements in PT, however protons do. Even total absence of electrons around the nuclei does not change the placement of the element in the sequence. How can it be indifferent to the nuclei? And then you called it all nonsense... It looks like word "nonsense" is one of your favorite.

John, You never answer my questions. Why? Why Madelung rule diagram has slanted lines, for example? It is easy to be dismissive. It is harder to answer direct questions. Right? Klaynos, I agree. That would be nice to come up with equation like that. But how liquid drop model acconts for the magic numbers? Did you read my explanation of how to derive magic numbers from sphere packing? Did you understand it? You are asking for equation... If physical modeling is not in your arsenal, feel free to come up with one.

Dear Scientist, If you visited my web site you would know that Dmitri Mendeleev argued that Periodic table should rather be based on "exactly observed numbers", than on properties, which could be different for the same element. And ADOMAH concept follows that rule. I think I made my point clear: Tetrahedral sphere packing explains, electron configuration, Madelung rule, Aufbau Prinzip and the nuclear Magic numbers. I made my share of discoveries and I did my job to report them to you. Now, it is your turn to make an effort, digest the information and explain why that is the case. It would be more productive and I would certainly appreciate your imput.

Sphere packing does not affect the electron configuration, it describes it. Despite different chemical properties, ions of the same element are the ions of the same element and do not change their position in the periodic table. Even if there is only nucleus left, it is still the same element because of the atomic number Z. Have you visited http://www.perfectperiodictable.com? Please, give it half an hour of your time. Thanks.

Here we go again. You really need to read all the posts in this thread.

Last time I looked at IUPAC Table it had periods with 2,8,8,18,18,32,32 elements. What is periodic about "period" with 2 elements, that is H and He? There is no other row like that. The correct lengths are 2,2,8,8,18,18,32,32 as in LSPT and ADOMAH. If you have more questions, please visit http://www.perfectperiodictable.com I checked the Web site that you referred me to. That is an excellent illustartion in my favor. [img http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electron_orbitals.svg [/img]Thanks. Just count elements in each diagonal and you will get 2,2,8,8,18,18... just like in ADOMAH and not 2,8,8,18,18... as in IUPAC table. What happend? Why lines are diagonal? Why subshell corresponding to n=5, l=4 (5g) is missing? Why the whole diagram so strikingly resemble ADOMAH PT on its side if gray diagonals are removed? I know why! Because Aufbau Prinzip and the Madelung rule follow the rule of the Tetrahedral Sphere Packing reflected by the ADOMAH Tetrahedron Stack of spheres! You made my point for me, John. You really need to check it out. Thanks.

No advantage? Here is the big one: There were no explanation for the Madelung Rule (n+l) that governs the Periodic Law until it was shown that this rule is nothing but the order of Tetrahedral Sphere Packing (http://www.perfectperiodictable.com). And many more advantages, like correct length and natural limits of the periods, for example. And it is not as much the shape of the nucleus, as its organization, the order, that seems to have some logical connection to the sphere packing concept, which also has something to do with the electronic energy levels. I did not say that you have old mind set. I said:"Your mind is set on old PT". You just got used to the old periodic table, that is what I meant. All the best! Vts.

Thanks for your clarification. Because of your reference to the other PT, I thought that you meant 2D ADOMAH PT version that represents 4 slices of the tetrahedron. Thanks to ADOMAH, we know now that traditional PT also represents 4 slices of the tetrahedron, only there they are out of order and out of proportion.

John "The chemistry is all about the electrons." The nucleus is left to the physicists. The sphere packing is for mathematicians. But the Science must be about all of the above, including Atoms, which consist of nuclei and electrons together. There woudn't be chemistry if all electrons would be 'flying" in space on their own. I demonstrated that the Periodic Law can be explained by tetrahedral sphere packing (www.perfectperiodictable.com) and the magic numbers that are basis for the current nuclear model can be derived from the tetrahedral sphere packing also. Some sort of connection is probable. You mind is set on old PT. ADOMAH PT is very practical, just print yourself a PDF copy from the web site mentioned above and try to use it for some time, before saying that it is impractical. Check "User Guide" page. I have been using it since 2006 and never go back to the IUPAC version. I am sure that others will find it very useful too, especially when you want to write electronic configurations or explain the Periodic Law to students. Movement of electrons about a nucleus, as you know, is very well "choreographed". Do you really believe that such complicated "dance" would happen by itself if you simply assemble a charge Z at some point of space? Wouldn't electromagnetic field be simply spherical then? What if nucleus has something to do with electrons, besides just attracting them? What if nucleus shapes the electromagnetic field around itself in certain way that makes electrons to do what they do? Just a thought.

Yes. That is the one. Actually, I do not quite like the web site that I gave you. Simply speaking, this is how sphere packing accounts for all Magic Numbers: Imagine yourself working in a Super Market and you are in charge of arranging oranges on the flat table. This is what you would do: place first orange, then place to more oranges next to the first one, so they create a triangle. Put one orange on top of the first three. You have your first tetrahedron. Next, place three oranges on the table next to the two orange base of the tetrahedron, place two more oranges on top of three and one on top of two, you completed your second tetrahedron that has three layers. Next, place four oranges on the table next to the three at the base. Place three oranges on top of that and two on top of three and complete your third tetrahedron with the fourth orange on the top, etc... Each time when you complete a step wright down number of oranges in each new row that you placed and you will get sequence: 1, 2,1, 3,2,1, 4,3,2,1, 5,4,3,2,1, 6,5,4,3,2,1, 7.... if you add numbers above and write them down one at a time you will get: 1,3,4,7,9,10,14,17,19,20,25,29,32,34,35,41,46,50,53,55,56,63 multiply the above sequence by two (X2), result is following: 2,6,8,14,18,20,28,34,38,40,50,58,64,68,70,82,92,100,106,110,112,126 The bold numbers above are the Magic Numbers. Seven (7) of them out of twenty two (22). Those who are familiar with Energy levels obtained in nuclear-shell theory (typically presented as "energy above well bottom" image) know that there are twenty two (22) energy levels, seven (7) of which yield the magic numbers. Moreover, there are seven more numbers generated by the tetrahedral sphere packing that coincide with the nuclear shell energy levels: 6, 14, 38, 40, 58, 64, 100. That is 14 out of 22 numbers (64%) of energy level numbers match with sphere packing results. Rest of them deviate slightly. If you prefer, you can try it with cork balls and glue at home instead of oranges and you will get the same Magic Numbers that the Nuclear Shell Theory explained in somewhat less friendly way. Good luck!

You can try this: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-magic.asp Also, try to Google J. Garai or Double Tetrahedron nucleus

The nuclei has been identified by the scattering experiments of Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden working under supervision of Rutherford. Since then the nuclei were targeted by better penetrating probes. However, we still do not even know the phase of the nucleons. What are the nuclei like? Gas, liquid, semi-solid or highly organized crystal like entities, like rotating tetrahedron, or double tetrahedron for example? All we know that there is some kind of organization, thanks to the Magic Numbers. It depends on particular atom. Hydrogen nucleus would certainly look like a sphere. Helium nucleus is more like a tetrahedron. I argue that Calcium nucleus would also look more like a tetrahedron, or, perhaps, double tetrahedron. It also depends on our interpretation of the data received through scattering experiments. Subjectivity could also be a factor. The fact is that the Magic Numbers can be explained by the tetrahedron sphere packing.

I used word "seen" figuratively. The truth is that we do not have enough scientific knowledge about nuclei to say with absolute confidence what are they like.

We are talking here about pioneering work that is gaining strength. No one has seen an atomic nucleus yet to say with confidence what it is like. There are few models of the nucleus: liquid drop' date=' claster and shell, that assume liquid, gas and semi-solid phases of the nuclei. Nuclear shell theory is a theory with many holes in it (that would qualify as a guess work in other cases), despite its general recognition. It was born in attempt to explain seven Magic Numbers 2, 8, 20, 28,50, 82, 126. The Shell Theory explains certain things while not explaining others. It never hurts to look around for a better explanation. The fact is that the tetrahedron sphere packing row by row yields following sequence: 1,2,1,3,2,1,4,3,2,1,5,4,3,2,1,6,5,4,3,2,1,7..., if you add numbers above you will get: 1,3,4,7,9,10,14,17,19,20,25,29,32,34,35,41,46,50,53,55,56,63 multiply the by two (X2), result is following: [b']2[/b],6,8,14,18,20,28,34,38,40,50,58,64,68,70,82,92,100,106,110,112,126 The bold numbers above are the Magic Numbers. Seven (7) of them out of twenty two (22). Those who are familiar with Energy levels obtained in nuclear-shell theory (typically presented as "energy above well bottom" image) know that there are twenty two (22) energy levels, seven (7) of which yield the magic numbers. Do you see similarity here? Moreover, there are seven more numbers generated by the tetrahedral sphere packing that coincide with the nuclear shell energy levels: 6, 14, 38, 40, 58, 64, 100. That is 14 out of 22 numbers (64%) of energy level numbers match with sphere packing results. Rest of them deviate slightly. Isn't it amazing? That is in addition to the explanation of the Periodic Law based on the tetrahedral sphere packing (http://www.perfectperiodictable.com) which Shell theory does not even touch. Not bad at all for the start!

It was recently realized that Periodic Law follows rules of the tetrahedral sphere packing and points to double tetrahedron nucleus: Minor changes to the good old Periodic Table led to realization that spdf blocks of the Periodic table are slices of the tetrahedron. Madelung Rule (n+l), that is a big part of the periodic law, is explained on the basis of mathematical concept called sphere packing. Nuclear magic numbers 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82 and 126 are products of tetrahedral sphere packing also, suggesting much closer connection of nucleus with electronic shells. You can check it out at http://www.perfectperiodictable.com

"When you get to an inert gas you drop to the next line." You just made my point, John. Now, tell me why do you drop to the next line when you get to inert gas? Why not to follow spdf (l=0,1,2,3) instead of sfdp (l=0,3,2,1)? Don't be quick to call my post a nonsense. It is not. IUPAC Periodic table is nonsense, because it cuts sequence in acoordance with metallic/nonmetallic/inert gas properties of the elements and not in accordance with the quantum numbers. Just see list of n+l values for last electron listed in order of atomic number Z below: 1122333333334444444455554555545555555566665666556666666677777777777777777777777677777777888888888888888888... New period starts when "n+l" reaches new high value. These are the natural periods: 11, 22, 33333333, 44444444, 555545555455555555, 666656665566666666, 77777777777777777777777677777777, 888888888888888888... And this is how IUPAC Table cuts it? 11, 22333333, 33444444, 445555455554555555, 556666566655666666, 66777777777777777777777677777777, 77888888888888888888... Do you think this is right way to cut the sequence from the quantum perspective? (where, "n+l" rule is the basis for the periodic law).

Yes. That is Science News, April 12, 2008 issue. Vol. 173, No. 15., p.230. Title: " Einstein's Invisible Hand. Is relativity making metal act like a noble gas?"

Currently standard IUPAC Periodic Table is based on metallic/nonmetallic properties of the elements. But, I believe, it is going to change rather soon. The Periodic Table can be formulated to follow the Quantum Numbers n, l, ml and ms, as recently was demonstrated (ADOMAH PT). The true Periodic Table have to follow natural grouping of the elements in accordance with the n+l rule, which is the basis for the periodicity. It was reported recently that element 114 (Uuq), that was expected to be similar to lead (Pb), behaves more like a noble gas ! The more we find out about heavy elements the more surprises we'll get and the good old IUPAC PT will not hold.

Just read an article that Element 114 (Uuq) does not behave as a metal at all, but rather as a nobel gas! That is another confirmation that the Periodic table has to be based on the Quantum Numbers and not on the chemical properties.