hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 No it wouldn't be (please look up what a noble gas is), and no they aren't. They are very clearly different. The periodic table is a form of data organisation. The lanthanides and actinides are where they are because it's easier to look at. If you put them in amongst the transition metals, all you do is make the table wider. It doesn't make Hf a noble gas. It is similar to the add column left / add column right function when you make tables in MS Word. Here is what it looks like if you bump the f block into the table: Your diagrams are, for lack of a better word, meaningless. 20 minutes ago, danking said: f orbitals are just giant s, p and d orbitals anyway funny how all the probability "shells" are shaped like my diagrams lol those p's look a hell of a lot like what I am showing ;-) The sequences match, except for that bit in the middle, and please ignore half of the periodic table because those don't match either. What do you mean the half that barely exists.... and has not been studied in its entirety that half? lol FYI the half you are suggesting is radioactive: Francium. Firstly, Francium is REALLY rare! It is radioactive and it breaks down into other elements very quickly. It was discovered in France in 1939 by a French physicist called Marguerite Perey. There are thought to be only 30 grams of it on the Earth at one time. for instance... numerology? lol really... Why does it matter if they're radioactive or not? That isn't really related to electronic configuration, so it should have no bearing whatsoever on your sequence. Besides, the first two instances where it differs occur in the first half, in the set of naturally occurring elements. You also stated in an earlier post that the sequence similarity holds true into the f block "and beyond." That's been shown to be completely false, so I have to assume then that you're making most of this up as you go.
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 Okay cool looks right to me. Here's a 2D representation of the 3D prime model which is wrong by the way - obviously lol 7 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: Your diagrams are, for lack of a better word, meaningless. thanks, ;-) feedback is a gift thank god for that periodic table lol and those f orbitals! phew! -1
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1. If the diagram is wrong, why bother showing it? 2. What looks right to you? 3. Yes, thank goodness there are / were people out there much smarter than either of us, who knew what they were doing enough to come up with the periodic table!
DrP Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 23 minutes ago, danking said: numerology? lol really... When numbers get fudged to fit patterns and some kinda cosmic connection is made.... or the numbers don't quite fit so goal posts are moved to make them fit..... usually with some kind of cosmic explanation or conclusion drawn. Or, when a completely innocent series or pattern occurs naturally and just happen to fit a number sequence (why shouldn't it?) and an unnecessary explaination is jumped to... usually involving some cosmic debris - That's numerology in a nutshell - but I'm not an expert. Maybe you have found some pattern and, as is usually the case in chemistry, there are exceptions to the rule. But it doesn't mean it has a reason... maybe it does has a reason. What do you think is the reason for the run fitting the pattern of prime gaps (saying for arguments sake it did actually fit, ignoring where it doesn't)? (Sorry if you have already said this earlier - I must have missed it or forgot).
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 13 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: 2 minutes ago, DrP said: When numbers get fudged to fit patterns and some kinda cosmic connection is made.... or the numbers don't quite fit so goal posts are moved to make them fit..... usually with some kind of cosmic explanation or conclusion drawn. Or, when a completely innocent series or pattern occurs naturally and just happen to fit a number sequence (why shouldn't it?) and an unnecessary explaination is jumped to... usually involving some cosmic debris - That's numerology in a nutshell - but I'm not an expert. Maybe you have found some pattern and, as is usually the case in chemistry, there are exceptions to the rule. But it doesn't mean it has a reason... maybe it does has a reason. What do you think is the reason for the run fitting the pattern of prime gaps (saying for arguments sake it did actually fit, ignoring where it doesn't)? (Sorry if you have already said this earlier - I must have missed it or forgot). To be honest I was going to answer this but the previous: 1. If the diagram is wrong, why bother showing it? 2. What looks right to you? 3. Yes, thank goodness there are / were people out there much smarter than either of us, who knew what they were doing enough to come up with the periodic table! has put me off... I would google the no no no no brain and look into concrete thinking version complex thinking... hyper_valent you are a claassic example of 20th Century thinker... lower order thinking using just: 1.Remember 2. Comprehend 3. Apply ... Unfortunately with the problems facing the 21st century we need more "complex thinkers" who otherwise mankind is finished. 13 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: Quote what i will do is go away and find answers to your questions... ;-) because that's what people do that are clever than you Mr Iodine
studiot Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, danking said: 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.. Here is a prime (smile) example of why we should have a numbering or indexing system on the posts like previous versions of this forum used to. danking you are having trouble quoting. (me too) One thing I have discovered with this new improved presentation of the forum is that if you highlight (select) a portion of text and right click, then a black 'quote this' balloon appears. Click on that and you get the quote as above. I wanted that quote because whilst playing with a spreadsheet this afternoon to compare sequences I realised the following problem with your derivation of your sequence. You have divided the electron population in half to obtain the up spin electrons for entry into your sequence. But This will only work for paired electrons. Every unpaired electron will be automatically undecided as it could be up or down. You cannot arbitrarily chose it to match the spin of the rest of your electrons. Every other element in the table will have an unpaired electron, and some will have more. Edited August 31, 2017 by studiot
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 Hi 5 minutes ago, studiot said: Here is a prime (smile) example of why we should have a numbering or indexing system on the posts like previous versions of this forum used to. danking you are having trouble quoting. (me too) One thing I have discovered with this new improved presentation of the forum is that if you highlight (select) a portion of text and right click, then a black 'quote this' balloon appears. Click on that and you get the quote as above. I wanted that quote because whilst playing with a spreadsheet this afternoon to compare sequences I realised the following problem with your derivation of your sequence. You have divided the electron population in half to obtain the up spin electrons for entry into your sequence. But This will only work for paired electrons. Every unpaired electron will be automatically undecided as it could be up or down. You cannot arbitrarily chose it to match the spin of the rest of your electrons. Every other element in the table will have an unpaired electron, and some will have more. yes this forum needs a little something to make it easier... the post trail has gotten very long. the spin thing is really interesting... firstly the elements don't exist as elements - atoms unless they are noble gases i.e. single electrons don't exist... but in terms of the spin, it's either up or down or clockwise or anticlockwise so they look like this: oh and thanks for coming back and looking at it yourself! in terms of the spin and dividing in half... that's where I go a little off piste, even more, lol and argue that clockwise and anti-clockwise are one and the same thing...
studiot Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 9 minutes ago, danking said: lol and argue that clockwise and anti-clockwise are one and the same thing... That doesn't make sense to me. If spin up and spin down are one and the same why divide by 2? 10 minutes ago, danking said: firstly the elements don't exist as elements - atoms unless they are noble gases i.e. single electrons don't exist... I don't think you mean quite this, perhaps you would like to rephrase?
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 Yes so in terms of spin... or clockwise and anticlockwise. If you look at your clock it is going clockwise I assume so you can tell the time? If you go behind your clock and look at it from behind it is going anti clockwise... You can see this on a piece of paper with a thick pen This circle is clearly spinning clockwise in the + x axis But if I am on the other side of the page it's going the opposite way: If you watch cyclist bike wheels from one side of the road then the other you can see the same thing... So spin is relative. In terms of atoms and elements... Li is an element with a single electron BUT it doesn't exist by itself it reacts very quickly... Oxygen "free radicals" are the same and age us by destroying the DNA very reactive... it's the reason chemistry happens. If you want to read up on orbitals you can see the only difference between the p and d is their axis of orientation https://socratic.org/chemistry/the-electron-configuration-of-atoms/arrangement-of-electrons-in-orbitals-spd-and-f They're the same shape they just sit in different axis so all this argument around 4p and 3d is an axial argument i.e is the shell sitting in the x or xy axis? i.e. the p or d... and f is LOTS more involved...
studiot Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 18 minutes ago, danking said: Yes so in terms of spin... or clockwise and anticlockwise. If you look at your clock it is going clockwise I assume so you can tell the time? If you go behind your clock and look at it from behind it is going anti clockwise... You can see this on a piece of paper with a thick pen This circle is clearly spinning clockwise in the + x axis But if I am on the other side of the page it's going the opposite way: If you watch cyclist bike wheels from one side of the road then the other you can see the same thing... So spin is relative. In terms of atoms and elements... Li is an element with a single electron BUT it doesn't exist by itself it reacts very quickly... Oxygen "free radicals" are the same and age us by destroying the DNA very reactive... it's the reason chemistry happens. If you want to read up on orbitals you can see the only difference between the p and d is their axis of orientation https://socratic.org/chemistry/the-electron-configuration-of-atoms/arrangement-of-electrons-in-orbitals-spd-and-f They're the same shape they just sit in different axis so all this argument around 4p and 3d is an axial argument i.e is the shell sitting in the x or xy axis? i.e. the p or d... and f is LOTS more involved... I'm sorry I think all of this is an off topic red herring. Spin up and spin down are differentiated for a reason. I suggest you look up enantiomers, chirality and plain old handedness. The crux of the matter is that you have avoided dividing atoms with an odd number of outer electrons by 2 by arbitrarily assigning a particular spin to them. Free Lithium has one outer electron, not one electron. Free hydrogen is the only atom with just one electron, monatomic hydrogen certainly exists. Note, according to Wikipedia, in fact it is the most abundant substance in the universe Quote wikipedia Hydrogen is a chemical element with symbol H and atomic number 1. With a standard atomic weight of circa 1.008, hydrogen is the lightest element on the periodic table. Its monatomic form (H) is the most abundant chemical substance in the Universe, constituting roughly 75% of all baryonic mass.[
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 Yes sorry I couldn't resist... no monatomic doesn't mean with 1 electron it's either with 1 extra or without one: ono atomic hydrogen is neither hydride (H-) nor proton (H+). Rather, what you seek is the H radical. Typically, hydrogen free radicals are so reactive that they don't exist in solution but their chemistry can be accessed by reacting longer lived radicals with hydrogen atom donors in a reaction called a hydrogen atom abstraction. Alternatively, it is possible to generate hydrogen atoms in solution via photolysis or high temperature in molecules with particularly weak R-H bonds. In these cases the H radicals will react very rapidly and are typically very short lived. Cheers There is no odd or even or clockwise or anti-clockwise its perspective. Sorry that should say mono atomic ...
studiot Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 17 minutes ago, danking said: Yes sorry I couldn't resist... no monatomic doesn't mean with 1 electron it's either with 1 extra or without one: ono atomic hydrogen is neither hydride (H-) nor proton (H+). Rather, what you seek is the H radical. Typically, hydrogen free radicals are so reactive that they don't exist in solution but their chemistry can be accessed by reacting longer lived radicals with hydrogen atom donors in a reaction called a hydrogen atom abstraction. Alternatively, it is possible to generate hydrogen atoms in solution via photolysis or high temperature in molecules with particularly weak R-H bonds. In these cases the H radicals will react very rapidly and are typically very short lived. Cheers Is that so? It's not what it says here Quote Wikiopedia In physics and chemistry, monatomic is a combination of the words "mono" and "atomic," and means "single atom." It is usually applied to gases: a monatomic gas is one in which atoms are not bound to each other.
swansont Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 5 hours ago, danking said: 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. Okay excuse my "inexact" language it's a little "unfair" to zoom in on that BUT electrons do exist in energy levels that ARE distinct and THEY CAN NOT exist between them they are EITHER in ONE or ANOTHER - check your quantum physics... I am well aware of this. But you didn't mention energy in your posts. And not only is it fair to "zoom in", it's expected. Precise terminology is employed in science so that we can communicate effectively. I have to assume you mean what you write.
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 5 hours ago, danking said: what i will do is go away and find answers to your questions... ;-) because that's what people do that are clever than you Mr Iodine No answers yet?
studiot Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 As a furthr matter of interest, Why did you omit the first prime? This would have started your gap sequence with a zero. Quote 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53...
danking Posted September 1, 2017 Author Posted September 1, 2017 14 hours ago, studiot said: As a furthr matter of interest, Why did you omit the first prime? This would have started your gap sequence with a zero. It's omitted because there is no gap between 1 2 3 gaps = 0 0 so you could write 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 I've also had a chance to drill into this p and d problem and have an explanation... Summary of the main issues yesterday was the p and d are in the wrong order below... should read 5 3 not 3 5 (I've not looked at f because that is a lot more full on) 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 (Primes Gaps) 1s1 2s1 2p3 3s1 3p3 4s1 4p3 3d5 5s1 4d5 (Electron Configuration from Hydrogen to Cadmium) Okay so the 4p and 3d are in the wrong order... why? What is the difference between p and d? P orbital d oribital There is a significant difference... p orbitals contain 2 electrons on each axis x, y and z d orbitals contain ONLY 1 electron on each axis AND occupy the same space as the px, py, pz, s = 4 electrons and in between the x, y and z 6 electrons So essentially the electrons in the d occupy 10 axis NOT 5... and are in the "same space" as the p and s BUT they go through the middle of the nucleus as there is only 1 electron per axis... So the d orbitals occupy: 4s1, 4p3, 3d5, 5s1 BUT across the axis so they also occupy the - 4s1, - 4p3, -3d5, -5s1 with the SAME electron... = 10 electrons I haven't looked at the f orbitals I thought I would let this sink in first - so please don't bombard me with f lol Dan
hypervalent_iodine Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 That is incorrect. The electronic configuration for cadmium is still written with the 4p coming before the the 5s and after the 3d. Your explanation for the differences in p and d orbitals further leads me to believe you don't actually know what orbitals are. They aren't static orbital pathways for electrons. They are probability density maps. Those shapes are just a representation of the space in which you are likely to find a particular electron. 11 minutes ago, danking said: So essentially the electrons in the d occupy 10 axis NOT 5... and are in the "same space" as the p and s BUT they go through the middle of the nucleus as there is only 1 electron per axis... So the d orbitals occupy: 4s1, 4p3, 3d5, 5s1 BUT across the axis so they also occupy the - 4s1, - 4p3, -3d5, -5s1 with the SAME electron... = 10 electrons I haven't looked at the f orbitals I thought I would let this sink in first - so please don't bombard me with f lol This honestly makes no sense. I suggest you start by reviewing the wiki article on atomic orbitals, and then review what you have just said. -1
studiot Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 1 hour ago, danking said: 15 hours ago, studiot said: As a furthr matter of interest, Why did you omit the first prime? This would have started your gap sequence with a zero. It's omitted because there is no gap between 1 2 3 gaps = 0 0 so you could write 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 1 is not a prime number. So there is only one zero in the prime gap sequence. That does not explain why you feel entitled to omit it. Zero is a valid number. So your sequence does not match at the very beginning (there are no atoms with zero electrons). You still have not answered my question about arbitrary spin allocation to atoms with odd numbers of electrons
danking Posted September 1, 2017 Author Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, hypervalent_iodine said: Your explanation for the differences in p and d orbitals further leads me to believe you don't actually know what orbitals are. They aren't static orbital pathways for electrons. They are probability density maps. Those shapes are just a representation of the space in which you are likely to find a particular electron. Okay good we're getting somewhere you are absolutely right the electron aspect is a bit of a red herring because they are probability shells rather than actual paths ways themselves ... The key is they sit within those "shapes" so what is keeping them in those shapes? If you add electrons together in the same space you get sparks or lightning... The prime numbers are the key... they make those "cone" shapes... It's very hard to show in 2D but this is a prime number "cone" 29 minutes ago, studiot said: 1 is not a prime number. So there is only one zero in the prime gap sequence. That does not explain why you feel entitled to omit it. Zero is a valid number. So your sequence does not match at the very beginning (there are no atoms with zero electrons). You still have not answered my question about arbitrary spin allocation to atoms with odd numbers of electrons okay this is a bit of a nonsense ... the 0 atom? 1 2 3 could very well be the dimensional aspects i.e. the axis and whether 1 or 2 are primes is a nonsense... and if you read the last post those are single spin atom allocations - d block so the existence of a single spin in d would translate to other single spins but this is all a bit like 100 and 1,000's on a cake... you need the cake first. More complex version of the prime cone... (red lines indicate primes) and more complex sitll you can see with a little imagination the cones within each other... on a particular axis Edited September 1, 2017 by danking -1
studiot Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, danking said: okay this is a bit of a nonsense ... the 0 atom? 1 2 3 could very well be the dimensional aspects i.e. the axis and whether 1 or 2 are primes is a nonsense... So you are saying you really don't know what a prime is then if you don't know if 1 or 2 are prime numbers. Here is a page full of explanations as to why 1 is defined to be not a prime number, but 2 is. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&q=why+is+1+not+a+prime+number&oq=why+is+1+not+a+prime+number&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4.1146.7187.0.7734.27.27.0.0.0.0.186.2609.18j9.27.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.27.2595...0i131k1.8w-IHVK9a4Q But what matters is that the first number in the prime gap sequence is 0 But the first number in the electron sequence must be a 1 32 minutes ago, danking said: and if you read the last post those are single spin atom allocations - d block so the existence of a single spin in d would translate to other single spins but this is all a bit like 100 and 1,000's on a cake... you need the cake first. You are continuing to avoid the question. When you have paired electrons you can guarantee one of each spin so you can choose a set of all one spin. But if you have a single extra electron it could have either spin and you cannot know which. Last time you avoided the question by telling me that it does not matter because the spins are the same. Edited September 1, 2017 by studiot
danking Posted September 1, 2017 Author Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) You are continuing to avoid the question. When you have paired electrons you can guarantee one of each spin so you can choose a set of all one spin. But if you have a single extra electron it could have either spin and you cannot know which. Last time you avoided the question by telling me that it does not matter because the spins are the same. No I answered this a while ago but lets explore... Okay so here is an electron... what do you think their spin is? One has an anti clockwise spin and is travelling UP The other has a clockwise spin and is travelling DOWN Agree? 5 minutes ago, studiot said: 37 minutes ago, danking said: okay this is a bit of a nonsense ... the 0 atom? 1 2 3 could very well be the dimensional aspects i.e. the axis and whether 1 or 2 are primes is a nonsense... So you are saying you really don't know what a prime is then if you don't know if 1 or are prime numbers. Here is a page full of explanations as to why 1 is defined to be not a prime number, but 2 is. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&q=why+is+1+not+a+prime+number&oq=why+is+1+not+a+prime+number&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4.1146.7187.0.7734.27.27.0.0.0.0.186.2609.18j9.27.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.27.2595...0i131k1.8w-IHVK9a4Q But what matters is that the first number in the prime gap sequence is 0 But the first number in the electron sequence must be a 1 OMG you need to lay off Google lol... I'm not being rude but this is nonsense... I know you got the electron configuration wrong originally but please lets not over do it with Wiki links... I'm cool with Critical Thinking but not with "critics" and I showed you yesterday that spin is perspective based so it's nonsense i.e clockwise and anti-clockwise are they same thing... just look at a clock take it off the wall and look it from behind it goes the other way... so your right UNTIL you look at it you don't know which way it is going... Quote You are continuing to avoid the question. When you have paired electrons you can guarantee one of each spin so you can choose a set of all one spin. But if you have a single extra electron it could have either spin and you cannot know which. Last time you avoided the question by telling me that it does not matter because the spins are the same. and you can try this at home on a sheet of paper... also Google water going down a plug hole in Australia... opposite to here PERSPECTIVE ... it's the same way they are just seeing it from the other side... Edited September 1, 2017 by danking -1
studiot Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 46 minutes ago, danking said: OMG you need to lay off Google lol... I'm not being rude but this is nonsense. Yes you are being rude, very rude. This thread is littered with fallacious statements by you. Each time one is pointed out by someone ( not all by me ) you carry on as though they had not posted. Perhaps that is why others (again not me) have been downvoting you. I am only pursuing this now because the partial match between the two sequences is interesting and I wonder how far it can be taken or if there is anything in modern abstract maths that would apply here (perhaps group theory). You asked for help yet seem unable to accept any or conduct a rational discussion progressing to a better conclusion that the initial hypothesis.
danking Posted September 1, 2017 Author Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) Okay so the tone on here was initially against me... Tonally it is very combative. and when you are wrong you simply accuse me of being very rude... I have been accused of being stupid etc which is fine but it is a little much - Even recently I was attacked as not "knowing x,yz" it's VERY passive aggressive. I am a mirror of how I am being treated so if you see me as rude... that is how you come across. On 28/08/2017 at 2:21 PM, studiot said: 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. This was you... stop thanking me... "please pay attention" 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. Again another "personal quote" etc etc... there are plenty of examples and it got worse - it feels like you have run out of answers so now you will delete me or "down play" the post regardless... BUT i would thank you all because it has progressed the idea... and it is a shame if I need to go to a new forum to discuss this new concept... because needless to say if it is right your forum would be famous 13 minutes ago, studiot said: Yes you are being rude, very rude. This thread is littered with fallacious statements by you. Each time one is pointed out by someone ( not all by me ) you carry on as though they had not posted. Perhaps that is why others (again not me) have been downvoting you. I am only pursuing this now because the partial match between the two sequences is interesting and I wonder how far it can be taken or if there is anything in modern abstract maths that would apply here (perhaps group theory). You asked for help yet sem unable to accept any or conduct a rational discussion progressing to a better conclusion that the initial hypothesis. 2 You are distracting from the science... this is on the homepage? I've answered your questions... clearly.. you normally bombard people but that has stopped so you are either bored or can't come up with an "explanation" from Google... Yesterday was like a free for all.. and now I am accused of being rude lol Pot Kettle Colour Check Table 5 ;-) and it's not that downplayed? 1 hour ago, danking said: Okay good we're getting somewhere you are absolutely right the electron aspect is a bit of a red herring because they are probability shells rather than actual paths ways themselves ... The key is they sit within those "shapes" so what is keeping them in those shapes? If you add electrons together in the same space you get sparks or lightning... The prime numbers are the key... they make those "cone" shapes... It's very hard to show in 2D but this is a prime number "cone" okay this is a bit of a nonsense ... the 0 atom? 1 2 3 could very well be the dimensional aspects i.e. the axis and whether 1 or 2 are primes is a nonsense... and if you read the last post those are single spin atom allocations - d block so the existence of a single spin in d would translate to other single spins but this is all a bit like 100 and 1,000's on a cake... you need the cake first. More complex version of the prime cone... (red lines indicate primes) and more complex sitll you can see with a little imagination the cones within each other... on a particular axis 2 Back to the science lol... 3 hours ago, danking said: It's omitted because there is no gap between 1 2 3 gaps = 0 0 so you could write 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 I've also had a chance to drill into this p and d problem and have an explanation... Summary of the main issues yesterday was the p and d are in the wrong order below... should read 5 3 not 3 5 (I've not looked at f because that is a lot more full on) 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 (Primes Gaps) 1s1 2s1 2p3 3s1 3p3 4s1 4p3 3d5 5s1 4d5 (Electron Configuration from Hydrogen to Cadmium) Okay so the 4p and 3d are in the wrong order... why? What is the difference between p and d? P orbital d oribital There is a significant difference... p orbitals contain 2 electrons on each axis x, y and z d orbitals contain ONLY 1 electron on each axis AND occupy the same space as the px, py, pz, s = 4 electrons and in between the x, y and z 6 electrons So essentially the electrons in the d occupy 10 axis NOT 5... and are in the "same space" as the p and s BUT they go through the middle of the nucleus as there is only 1 electron per axis... So the d orbitals occupy: 4s1, 4p3, 3d5, 5s1 BUT across the axis so they also occupy the - 4s1, - 4p3, -3d5, -5s1 with the SAME electron... = 10 electrons I haven't looked at the f orbitals I thought I would let this sink in first - so please don't bombard me with f lol Dan it has been really useful so thank you all - sorry it got heated at times BUT collaboration is never easy! Edited September 1, 2017 by danking
studiot Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 39 minutes ago, danking said: 43 minutes ago, studiot said: Yes you are being rude, very rude. This thread is littered with fallacious statements by you. Each time one is pointed out by someone ( not all by me ) you carry on as though they had not posted. Perhaps that is why others (again not me) have been downvoting you. I am only pursuing this now because the partial match between the two sequences is interesting and I wonder how far it can be taken or if there is anything in modern abstract maths that would apply here (perhaps group theory). You asked for help yet sem unable to accept any or conduct a rational discussion progressing to a better conclusion that the initial hypothesis. 2 You are distracting from the science... this is on the homepage? I've answered your questions... clearly. Yes you have answered some of my questions clearly, but wrongly. Would you like a list? Within 5 minutes of my post you reproduced as fact that which another member with an impeccable academic pedigree has told you was 'incorrect'. Why?
Recommended Posts