Periodic Law points to double tetrahedron nucleus

[Vts]

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

[pioneer]

Years ago, maybe 20 years ago, I developed a theory called dimensional decompression. The gist of it was taking single spheres starting at closest packing, and fluffing them out to add more gap percentage. I started with single spheres with 8-12 neighbors. The next is two spheres stuck together which allows hexagonal packing of six neighbors. Then we have three spheres stuck together in a triangle, then four which would become the tetrahedron unit. Eventually, one will get a tetrahedron of tetrahedrons. Each adds more gap percentage to the closest possible packing.

 

The original idea was based on the compression of matter, with the conclusion the smallest nuclei are able to pack tighter than larger nuclei since the final state is single spheres and neutron density. The larger atoms have more built in nuclear gaps, even when closest packed. The other conclusion was if we compressed large nuclei, to reduce the gap percentage, they would will disintegrate into smaller atoms for better packing, removing the nuclear engrained gaps. The chemistry has caught up.

 

There were other implications that most people didn't like. It placed the formation of higher atoms further from the center, where the dimensional decompression favored adding the gaps found in higher nuclei. Forming helium from T or D, over H, was more favorable at extreme pressure because their dimensional packing was closer to the helium tetrahedron. We needed only enough energy to fluff the T triangle grid so the tetrahedron He formed. I got carried away with atomic recycle due to compressional flow and convection. The idea was to add another layer of extreme pressure dynamics to make it easier to form atoms, rather than assuming just heat and random collisions. Use pressure for nuclear prefab.

 

I could never agree with iron sinking to the solar core since it was too dimensional fluffy and would need to disintegrate to be there. It made more sense to have an iron shell encasing the core in its own place within the dimensional grid. It is still fluffy enough for H diffusion. It it gets too thick, one see sun spots and cracks for pressure release as solar flares.

[John Cuthber]

"It was recently realized that Periodic Law follows rules of the tetrahedral sphere packing and points to double tetrahedron nucleus:"

It certainly has not been recognized generally.

The shapes of nuclei are known (as are the shapes of some of their excited states). Sphere's are common. Sausage shapes and pumpkin shapes happen too.

They are not tetrahederal or double tetrahedra.

[Vts]

We are talking here about pioneering work that is gaining strength.

 

The shapes of nuclei are known (as are the shapes of some of their excited states).

 

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!

[John Cuthber]

"No one has seen an atomic nucleus yet to say with confidence what it is like. "

I have never seen America but I have a fair idea what it's like.

Nobody has seen a single glucose molecule but it's shape is well documented.

Being able to see something has very little to do with scientific knowlege.

 

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/40/7/001

[Vts]

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.

[Klaynos]

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've got quite alot from scattering evidence though... we can 'probe' them quite well using fast electrons, and nucleons....

[Vts]

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.

[Klaynos]

The fact is that the Magic Numbers can be explained by the tetrahedron sphere packing.

 

This actually interests me alot, care to show how the magic number can be derived?

[Vts]

You can try this: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-magic.asp

 

Also, try to Google J. Garai or Double Tetrahedron nucleus

[Klaynos]

I guess you're refering to the section starting:

 

Hacking the Magic Number sequence using a physical model

 

It's a bit too wordy for me to read right now, if I remember I'll return to it when I get some more free time (about a months time!).

[Vts]

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!

[John Cuthber]

All this speculation about the shapes of nuclei (in the face of the observed facts) is amusing enough as a pass-time- much like sudoku.

On the other hand, the periodic table is related to the electrons rather than the nuclei.

The periodic table is about chemistry and the chemistry of an element is related to the electrons rather than the nuclei.

 

The classification into S,P,D, and F comes froms spectroscopic observation of the spectea (the letters, IIRC, are the initials of sharp, principle, diffuse and fine).

This is plainly nothing to do with the nuclei because electronic spectroscopy deals with electrons (the clue is in the name).

Accordingly;

"It was recently realized that Periodic Law follows rules of the tetrahedral sphere packing and points to double tetrahedron nucleus:"

now needs to be replaced buy

"It was recently realized that Periodic Law follows the rules of quantium mecahnics and points to no evidence of anything to do with the nucleus:"

 

Your version of the periodic table is pretty, but impractical.

A bit like this one

http://www.periodicspiral.com/

[pioneer]

Part of the irony is the nuclei are rather large compared to some of the substructures we know a lot about. We have more confidence in the tiny. It is like saying the elephant is highly questionable but we can see the fleas. I am not trying to be difficult, but I look for conceptual consistency. If we know the fleas, we should be able to reverse engineer and know, with confidence, at least where elephant's ears and neck are since that is where the fleas like to go.

 

Call me old fashion, but I would have to assume, if one does not know how the nuclei are arranged, one doesn't know how substructure relates when confronted with other substructure in a real world situation. That should be important for telling us would tell how positive charge and the nuclear forces interact at macro-distance using the models of sub-structure. This, in turn, should be needed for any reality model of force interaction. All we may know is how the sub-structure interacts in particle accelerators, with nuclei a real life practical test application, to see if theory extrapolates.

 

There should be a push in physics to define the nucleus and then back check the detailed theory to make sure models accommodate these fundamental natural observations like shape. It may be a good litmus test. That would be the approach I would take. As long as the elephant is questionable, we can have the fleas floating in thin air and assume that is just the way fleas are. At that point, we can debate all the possible ways fleas can float in the air because there is no basic reality check.

 

Maybe I am being too logical for the practical needs of abstract math art. Abstract art works better when there are no tangible reality boundaries. This may explain why this reality interface has been avoided or by-passed. The fear could be, knowing could actually be worse, than not knowing. The nuclei represent the interface with chemistry, where the diversity of theoretical abstract math art gets pinched and has to change more into unified reality art that has to work in the real world.

[John Cuthber]

"The nuclei represent the interface with chemistry"

No, they still don't. The chemistry is all about the electrons.

The stuff about nuclei is called "nuclear physics"; onec again, the hint is in the name.

[Vts]

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.

[pioneer]

Technically you are correct, so I stand corrected. Regardless, since the interaction of the electrons and the protons is what makes atoms, and since electrons form orbital shapes, one would expect some type of reinforcing reciprocity between the electrons and protons. It is not easy to tell which comes first, the chicken (electron) or the egg (proton). But one set of shapes should help the other set the shapes of the other set, since the force fields have a direct connection to other.

 

For example, magnetic iron has its outer electrons with the same spin. With inert iron, the electron energy is lower because there is opposite spin canceling out the magnetic. Do these each have a separate nuclear type state to reinforce the stability? This might explain how magnetic iron can be theoretically sustained in the center of the earth above the known magnetic temperature on the surface. This might imply a nuclear shape makes it possible that is stable at that temp. On the surface maybe it is the chicken before the egg, but in the core, maybe the egg comes before the chicken.

[John Cuthber]

My printer doesn't cope with 3d shapes like tetrahedera. That's one of the reasons I think the tetrahederal version is impractical.

[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 Cuthber]

The periodic table has served well for many years. There is no clear advantage to rearanging it.

It's not possible that the shape of the nuclei makes any meaningful difference to the electronic energy levels that dictate the periodic table.

Telling me I have an old mind set doesn't help anyone.

[Vts]

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.

[John Cuthber]

"more advantages, like correct length and natural limits of the periods, for example."

Last time I looked they were already the right lengths.

 

There's already an explanation of the rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufbau_principle

The rule isn't always followed.

Last time I looked, the lengths of the periods were correct anyway.

[Vts]

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.

[ydoaPs]

Chemistry is about the electrons, not the nucleus. How does tetrahedral sphere packing effect electron configuration?

[Vts]

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