danking Posted August 27, 2017 Posted August 27, 2017 The electron configuration of atoms is a pretty important sequence of numbers: 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d10 4p6 5s2 4d10 (Hydrogen to Palladium) Essentially: 2, 2, 6, 2, 6, 2, 10, 6, 1, 10 If you isolate the up electron spin: 1s1 2s1 2p3 3s1 3p3 4s1 3d5 4p3 5s1 4d5 or: 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 3 1 5 ... The prime number sequence is an equally important sequence of numbers: 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53... If you isolate the number gaps between the primes i.e. between prime 3 and prime 5 is the number 4 i.e. a gap of 1 number: Number gaps in the prime sequence: 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 Electrons configuration spin up: 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 3 1 5 There seems to be a correlation between these sequences other than: 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 (Primes Gaps) 1s1 2s1 2p3 3s1 3p3 4s1 3d5 4p3 5s1 4d5 (Electron Configuration from Hydrogen to Cadmium) Am I missing something here? The prime number sequence and the electron configuration arguably the two most important sequences in the universe and they seem to match? Is that merely a coincidence or significant? Thanks for any feedback! Dan
studiot Posted August 27, 2017 Posted August 27, 2017 Why have you switched the order of the d an p orbitals to create your sequence? Note also the comments about up spin in d orbitals in the first attachment.
danking Posted August 27, 2017 Author Posted August 27, 2017 (edited) Thanks for coming back I really appreciate it I haven't changed the sequence that's the one major difference between the prime gaps and the electron configuration... the 3d and 4p are switched... i.e. the gap between 19 and 23 (3) the gap between 23 and 29 (5) Thanks, Dan. It's also interesting your note on Ferric iron... let me have a look into that ;-) I've added a chart showing the primes and the their gaps and overlayed the electron configuration The blue circles represent electrons and the red circles are the prime number lines which could be magnetic field lines generated by the electrons... Edited August 27, 2017 by danking
studiot Posted August 27, 2017 Posted August 27, 2017 Sorry I should have said s and d orbitals are switched. The sequence you posted 1s1 2s1 2p3 3s1 3p3 4s1 3d5 4p3 5s1 4d5 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 3 1 5... The sequence I posted 1s1 2s1 2p3 3s1 3p3 3d5 4s1 4p3 4d5 5s1 1 1 3 1 3 5 1 3 5 1... What happens when you introduce the f orbitals?
danking Posted August 27, 2017 Author Posted August 27, 2017 Thank you so much for coming back No problem I'm only exploring this I'm looking for errors... "I think you are saying I've switched the p and d .. not the s" The s orbitals are critical. They fill first they are Group 1 and Group 2 of the table - the issues with this model is whether the transition metals are d or p... I've added 2 sources to show this... By the time you get to f it is a lot more fluid, however - f shell tends to be atoms that are radioactive and are not stable and rarely observed... but I've added f in I've attached an image of what this "could" look like as an atom as well - with the electrons travelling through the middle... I've added 2 images showing what that "might" look like but again feedback is a gift Thanks again for spending the time on this! Dan
studiot Posted August 27, 2017 Posted August 27, 2017 I'm not sure about the connection you are trying to make. The list of elements I posted in the table are in order of atomic number (labelled Z in the table) That is the number of electrons in the neutral atom. The way the electrons 'fill up' the orbitals is, for the most part, in shell order 1,2,3,4,5 etc. The shells fill up in order s, p d etc subshells, before moving on to the next shell. I said for the most part because from energy considerations there can be occasional exceptions for example the most conductive metals, copper, silver and gold, where the bottom of the next d falls below the top of the p subshell in energy and so fills in preference. But you have taken only elements with completely full shells and divided their electrons into up and down pairs and selected only the up half in each case to obtain your sequence. As far as I know, none of the elements with completely full shells do this so their sequence will be strictly as I have shown and not as you have rearranged them.
danking Posted August 28, 2017 Author Posted August 28, 2017 (edited) Thanks for coming back to me... In the diagram below the up electrons are on the right and the down electrons are on the left i.e. they are spinning through the centre of the atom... So both the up and down are included: They would fill up 1s1 on the right, 1s2 on the left, 2s1 on the right, 2s2 on the left... etc I've added a 3D model of Argon: Blue circles are the electrons orbiting, red are the prime magnetic field lines and the green are the actual rotational orbits... Thanks! Dan Edited August 28, 2017 by danking
swansont Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 Electrons can't have defined trajectories. That causes a whole slew of problems.
studiot Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 Two points. 1) You seem to have moved away from comparing two number sequences, which was the point of your original post. Where are we with that? 2) The circles you are drawing only very crudely approximate to the p orbital shape. They are totally wrong for the other orbital subshells. In particular the s orbital is a spherical ball centered on the nucleus, not two balls intersecting at the nucleus.
danking Posted August 28, 2017 Author Posted August 28, 2017 (edited) Thanks for coming back.... The trajectories I can deal with later I have thoughts on that... In terms of the original sequences (prime gap sequence): 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 The circle image is the same sequence ONLY mirrored on the axis at 0 i.e. for clarity UP SPIN & DOWN SPIN 5 1 5 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 You could think of it as -primes and + primes In terms of the orbital shapes this pattern follows that shape in that the s orbitals are ∞ shaped and rotated through the z axis hence the doughnut shape the circles are obviously just for "drawing" purpose... Again thank you for coming back to me I'm aware that this is either quirky coincidence or something far more important. Dan I have added Hydrogen and although it's not clear here the s orbital "doughnut" because it's a little more complex... Thanks Swansont, The electrons don't have "defined trajectories" they sit within prime numbers.. it's a little more complex and involves the riemann zeta function... The electrons don't travel exactly though the 0,0,0 ... so they actually touch all the primes (red, green and pink are prime circles blue are electrons - but this is a 2D trjectory they can be anywhere within that 3D space and they rotate so the pattern matches the "probability fields"... Thanks again! Dan Hi Swansont I have just read your post http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html lol i accept this is a bit out there and I've missed something I just wish it wasn't linked to the prime number sequence... it's just ridiculous coincidence. Dan Edited August 28, 2017 by danking
studiot Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 1 hour ago, danking said: Thanks for coming back. Instead of thanking me every post and then totally ignoring what you are allegedly thanking me for, please pay attention to what I am saying and address my points. I hope they are quite simply put. And I do address the points you make.
swansont Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 3 hours ago, danking said: Thanks Swansont, The electrons don't have "defined trajectories" they sit within prime numbers.. it's a little more complex and involves the riemann zeta function... The electrons don't travel exactly though the 0,0,0 ... "sit within prime numbers"? That contains no meaning for me. There's no physics. 3 hours ago, danking said: Hi Swansont I have just read your post http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html lol i accept this is a bit out there and I've missed something I just wish it wasn't linked to the prime number sequence... it's just ridiculous coincidence. Dan My post? I didn't write that
danking Posted August 28, 2017 Author Posted August 28, 2017 Wow that's pretty aggressive I was trying to be polite... please feel free to delete this post I'll go elsewhere and I guess I won't thank you...
Strange Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 4 hours ago, swansont said: My post? I didn't write that It is a great article though.
swansont Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 1 hour ago, danking said: Wow that's pretty aggressive I was trying to be polite... please feel free to delete this post I'll go elsewhere and I guess I won't thank you... It's unfortunate if you think this is personal. That's not something that ends well in science. Most ideas are wrong. Being emtionally invested in them is a bad idea. Honest evaluation is what you sign up for on a science discussion site.
Sensei Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 40 minutes ago, swansont said: It's unfortunate if you think this is personal. That's not something that ends well in science. Most ideas are wrong. Being emtionally invested in them is a bad idea. It even has name Observer-expectancy effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect Confirmation bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Cognitive bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 lol On 28/08/2017 at 9:22 PM, swansont said: It's unfortunate if you think this is personal. That's not something that ends well in science. Most ideas are wrong. Being emtionally invested in them is a bad idea. Honest evaluation is what you sign up for on a science discussion site. "honest evaluation" "most ideas are wrong" "you think its personal" Imagine what you would have said to Einstein lol... In science you make observations... I simply observed something of interest and was foolish enough to post it on here. All I stated was that the first 58 elements of the periodic tables electrons can sit within the gaps in the PRIME NUMBER SEQUENCE. It's not an idea, it's not pseudo science it's a simple fact. You then went off on a complete tangent about "Electrons can't have defined trajectories. That causes a whole slew of problems." Which is a nonsense and nothing to do with the simple fact that: "The first 58 elements of the periodic tables electrons can sit within the gaps in the PRIME NUMBER SEQUENCE." The end.
studiot Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, danking said: lol "honest evaluation" "most ideas are wrong" "you think its personal" Imagine what you would have said to Einstein lol... In science you make observations... I simply observed something of interest and was foolish enough to post it on here. All I stated was that the first 58 elements of the periodic tables electrons can sit within the gaps in the PRIME NUMBER SEQUENCE. It's not an idea, it's not pseudo science it's a simple fact. You then went off on a complete tangent about "Electrons can't have defined trajectories. That causes a whole slew of problems." Which is a nonsense and nothing to do with the simple fact that: "The first 58 elements of the periodic tables electrons can sit within the gaps in the PRIME NUMBER SEQUENCE." The end. And I told you three times that your electron configuration sequence is incorrect. I also showed that your prime sequence does not match the correct electron sequence. Further I noted that although you have put a substantial amount of work into your drawings, some of this work is also incorrect. However you can take heart from the fact you are in good company. Mendelev and Newlands also got the order wrong first time round. Edited August 31, 2017 by studiot
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 1 minute ago, studiot said: And I told you three times that your electron configuration sequence is incorrect. I also showed that your prime sequence does not match the correct electron sequence. Further I noted that although you have put a substantial amount of work into your drawings, some of this work is also incorrect. Okay and I showed you that the book you "referenced" shows that my list IS CORRECT you must have read it INCORRECTLY because you haven't taken into account how the "shells" fill up... I STATED THAT the ONLY difference is at the 4p3 and 3d5 I have added a screen shot of your book BUT if you don't know basic electron configurations I'm hardly likely to much notice of the "some of your work is incorrect" I'm only replying so other people can see that you "criticise" but you aren't accurate...
studiot Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 33 minutes ago, danking said: Okay and I showed you that the book you "referenced" shows that my list IS CORRECT you must have read it INCORRECTLY because you haven't taken into account how the "shells" fill up... I STATED THAT the ONLY difference is at the 4p3 and 3d5 I have added a screen shot of your book BUT if you don't know basic electron configurations I'm hardly likely to much notice of the "some of your work is incorrect" I'm only replying so other people can see that you "criticise" but you aren't accurate... Thanks for pointing that out. So we are both wrong. I was wrong because the table does indeed show that for potassium and calcium the 4s orbital does indeed fill up before electrons enter the 3d orbital. You were wrong because the table also shows that the 3d orbital fills up before any electrons enter the 4p orbital and remains full as the 4p orbital fill up (as also happens with the 4d and 5p orbitals). I don't yet see a correct 3D drawing of an s orbital from yourself.
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 Okay, thank you for admitting you were wrong... but I wasn't: As I pointed out in my original post: There seems to be a correlation between these sequences other than: 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 (Primes Gaps) 1s1 2s1 2p3 3s1 3p3 4s1 3d5 4p3 5s1 4d5 (Electron Configuration from Hydrogen to Cadmium) The ONLY difference is at 3d5 and 4p3... Now if you imagine this sequence is right up to the 58th element with a "wobble" in the middle at 3d5 and 4p3 AND you think about this being the PRIME NUMBER SEQUENCE... and that you won't find this referenced anywhere online... IS this significant? There are also differences with the f orbitals BUT if you look at the periodic table even that is "fudged" at element 57 and 89 (14 elements added at the bottom) Re( I don't yet see a correct 3D drawing of an s orbital from yourself. - I don't have access to a 3D model system but if I did I could show it - BUT hopefully you can forgive me that) Dan There is also a "difference" at the 4f which the text books show having 14 electrons BUT the prime sequence has 2 5's together... which in itself is odd that where the patterns switches to 14 there is a gap of 10 in the sequence. Here is a 2D representation of the s orbital at prime 5- as you can see it is shaped as you expect (crisscross black) - this 2D model spins on the axis 0,0,0
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 You realise that those aren't electronic configurations, right? All you're giving is the principal quantum number, the orbital type, and how many of those orbitals there are. The electronic configuration gives the number of electrons in the orbitals. You might not think this relevant, but consider elements such as copper, which only has one electron in the 4s orbital despite having 10 in the 3d (the higher energy orbital). For reference, the electronic configuration of copper would be stated as follows: 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s1 3d10. Your sequence, as well as being based on incorrect interpretations, does not account for that, does it? Regardless, I fail to see what you're actually getting at with all this. What does it mean, and how might it impact our current understanding of atomic structure? Studiot, electrons fill up orbitals in ascending order according to the energies of the orbitals, and is usually predicted by the Aufbau prinicple. However, it gets complicated when you reach the d block. It is usually taught that the 4s is lower in energy than the 3d, so it gets filled up first. This isn't problematic until you get past calcium and into the d block, where students are also taught that first row transition metals lose electrons from the 4s orbitals first. This would imply that they are higher in energy, but this seems contradictory when we supposedly filled those same orbitals up first because they were lower in energy. My understanding is that the first tenant is in fact false when you reach the d block and the 4s orbitals are actually filled last, but it's complicated. It has to do with the changes in electron attraction and repulsion by the addition of protons and electrons as you move through the periodic table, and the resulting change in the energy gap between the 4s and 3d orbitals. This website goes through it nicely: http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/properties/3d4sproblem.html
DrP Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 16 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: .....electrons fill up orbitals in ascending order according to the energies of the orbitals, and is usually predicted by the Aufbau prinicple. However, it gets complicated when you reach the d block. It is usually taught that the 4s is lower in energy than the 3d, so it gets filled up first. This isn't problematic until you get past calcium and into the d block, where students are also taught that first row transition metals lose electrons from the 4s orbitals first. This would imply that they are higher in energy, but this seems contradictory when we supposedly filled those same orbitals up first because they were lower in energy. If I remember rightly then don't you also get the case where the d shell will half fill with 5 electrons (one in each orbital, unpaired) before the 4s gets filled... then the 3d starts filling again to 10. I think the d shell can 'prefer' to be half full rather than have 4 or 6 electrons in it... cause more confusion with the order of filling iirc.
swansont Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 4 hours ago, danking said: lol "honest evaluation" "most ideas are wrong" "you think its personal" Imagine what you would have said to Einstein lol... Einstein presented a model based on established physics. Einstein was wrong about some things. He corrected mistakes that he made and came up with stronger theories. 4 hours ago, danking said: In science you make observations... I simply observed something of interest and was foolish enough to post it on here. You also make models, using math. 4 hours ago, danking said: All I stated was that the first 58 elements of the periodic tables electrons can sit within the gaps in the PRIME NUMBER SEQUENCE. It's not an idea, it's not pseudo science it's a simple fact. You then went off on a complete tangent about "Electrons can't have defined trajectories. That causes a whole slew of problems." It's based on what you posted. You have electron orbits. Electrons don't orbit. Ergo, your conjecture has no basis experimental fact, or support of theory. 4 hours ago, danking said: Which is a nonsense and nothing to do with the simple fact that: "The first 58 elements of the periodic tables electrons can sit within the gaps in the PRIME NUMBER SEQUENCE." The end. So? Is there anything here but numerology? Semi-interesting trivia?
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 25 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: You realise that those aren't electronic configurations, right? All you're giving is the principal quantum number, the orbital type, and how many of those orbitals there are. The electronic configuration gives the number of electrons in the orbitals. You might not think this relevant, but consider elements such as copper, which only has one electron in the 4s orbital despite having 10 in the 3d (the higher energy orbital). For reference, the electronic configuration of copper would be stated as follows: 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s1 3d10. Your sequence, as well as being based on incorrect interpretations, does not account for that, does it? Regardless, I fail to see what you're actually getting at with all this. What does it mean, and how might it impact our current understanding of atomic structure? Hi DrP, I stated at the beginning of the post that this is spin specific i.e. it is half the electron configuration of atoms so either up spin or down spin... and yes the issues around the the p and d I have stated. so in this sequence - Copper would be 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s? 4p? 3d? what I am saying is that in this sequence the numbers are mirrored at the axis: 5 1 5 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 and yes there is a "difference" at the 4p and 3d I haven't delved into that it means and how it impacts I am focusing on the fact that there is a pattern regardless of what I think it means in the PRIME sequence and in the electron configuration "spin specific" ...
Recommended Posts