Periodic Law points to double tetrahedron nucleus

[ydoaPs]

I have read it. You've not explained it. How do you account that different ions of the same element have different chemical properties?

[Vts]

How does tetrahedral sphere packing effect electron configuration?

 

Sphere packing does not affect the electron configuration, it describes it.

 

How do you account that different ions of the same element have different chemical properties?

 

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.

[ydoaPs]

Sphere packing does not affect the electron configuration, it describes it.

How does your explanation of the configuration of the NUCLEUS describe the electron configuration?

 

 

 

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.

So, you agree the ions have different chemical properties? How does this difference in electron configuration affect the tetrahedral sphere packing of the nucleus?

[Vts]

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.

[John Cuthber]

"I think I made my point clear:"

Uniquely.

"Tetrahedral sphere packing explains, electron configuration, Madelung rule, Aufbau Prinzip and the nuclear Magic numbers. "

No it doesn't, whereas boring old quantum mechanics does.

Isoptopes hold the same position in the periodic table but have different nuclei.

[Klaynos]

One thing that also comes to mind for me is, if we consider say the liquid drop model, then it can quite accurately tell us the binding energy, can this method? I'm looking for a single simple equation, binding energy = something.

[Vts]

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.

[Klaynos]

Equations are physical modelling, I only read your explanation quickly I don't have much/any free time atm, my finals are in a few weeks!

[Zephir]

...have you visited http://www.perfectperiodictable.com?

The same tetrahedral relationship is valid for meson table by Standard Model. Before some time I created an interactive model of it, which should be still working in MSIE 5.X-6.X

 

[John Cuthber]

"What is periodic about "period" with 2 elements, that is H and He? There is no other row like that."

That's a valid criticism of the name "periodic" which remains in use for historical reasons.

However the reason there are 2 elements in that period is well known. There's only 1 orbital with that energy and it only has room for 2 electrons because of the exclusion principle.

I'm afraid I can't answer the other question i.e.

"Why Madelung rule diagram has slanted lines" because it's far from clear what it means.

Anyway it cannot possibly matter.

All the elements have more than one isotope. Some, like tin, have a hatfull of stable isotopes.

They have different nuclei but occupy the same place in the periodic table so the periodic table is demostrably indifferent to the nuclei.

 

Why are you still bothering to try to defend this when it's clearly nonsense?

[Vts]

=John Cuthber;406618

I'm afraid I can't answer the other question i.e.

"Why Madelung rule diagram has slanted lines" because it's far from clear what it means.

Anyway it cannot possibly matter.

 

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).

 

All the elements have more than one isotope. Some, like tin, have a hatfull of stable isotopes.

They have different nuclei but occupy the same place in the periodic table so the periodic table is demostrably indifferent to the nuclei.

 

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.

[Zephir]

Briefly speaking, Vts has found an important coincidence and everything, what the physicists are supposed to do by now is to explain it or to prove, it's just a coincidence.

 

But I'm not big friend of purelly geometric explanations, like the Lisi Garret theory, no matter how deep and farseeing such explanation can be. Such geometry coincidence has always some deeper reasons behind it.

 

[Klaynos]

what the physicists are supposed to do by now is to explain it or to prove, it's just a coincidence.

 

I'm sure I've explained to you how science works before, and it's not like that.

[Zephir]

I'm sure I've explained to you how science works before, and it's not like that.

Many connections were revealed less or more acidentally and explained later. Surprisingly enough, just the best scientific ideas were originated by such way. Do you know for example, whole the periodic table was completelly empiric at the time of its creation, because no atom structure was known in Mendeleyev time?

 

Mendeleyev has obtained Nobel price in 1903, but the atom structure was revealed by Rutherford eperiments in 1909-1911. Up to this time whole the periodic table was a simply one big ...guess.

[Klaynos]

Many connections were revealed less or more acidentally and explained later. Surprisingly enough, just the best scientific ideas were originated by such way. Do you know for example, whole the periodic table was completelly empiric at the time of its creation, because no atom structure was known in Mendeleyev time?

 

Yes I did know that, but that's not really what you're suggesting, you're saying that "until proven wrong any suggestion must be taken as true, and it's the physicists job to prove them wrong no matter what they are." Or at least that is what I thought was implied by your comment. What you do need is testable mathematical predictions that are better than the current theories.

[Vts]

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.

[John Cuthber]

"I do not understand what point are you trying to make. "

I'm making the point, repeatedly, that the nuclei do not influence the periodic table because that role falls to the electrons.

"That is the fact and I can not understand your hostility towards it. If you disagree, just tell me how it is not."

I have told you why it is not true and you keep ignoring the fact. That's a good way to encourage hostillity.

[Zephir]

...until proven wrong any suggestion must be taken as true....

Nope, what I'm just saying is, the Popper methodology is perfectly symmetric in this point, because every negative stance ("the XY doesn't exist" or "the XY isn't possible") is the very new hypothesis, which must be considered false and as such proven independently. Therefore, the Popper methodology doesn't give us an relevant criterion of unverified hypothesis validity, in fact.

 

I'd preferr to handle every new hypothesis or connection with caution, as it can help us in understanding of reality less or more later. Not to forget the ideas - if we don't understand them, we cannot consider them refuted on principle. For example, the silly Aether concept was considered false due the trivial missunderstanding of dense matter behavior. Everybody has believed, the Aether is a sort of thin gas, while such concept has no meaning, as it doesn't enable the very high light energy density spreading, in fact.

 

But who ever considered the vacuum as a dense particle matter? Now we can see, this model can explain the strings, the character of light spreading, the foamy structure of vacuum, and many other concepts, which were ad-hoced by mainstream science in recent years. In fact it doesn't violate anything.

 

This is not good, as it means, we've deformed the meaning of Popper methodology. The pathological disbelief can be as harmfull, as the blind belief.

[Vts]

I'm making the point, repeatedly, that the nuclei do not influence the periodic table because that role falls to the electrons.

 

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.

 

I have told you why it is not true and you keep ignoring the fact. That's a good way to encourage hostillity..

 

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.

[insane_alien]

if they were just organized by Z then the entire periodic table would be a single row.

 

because it is done by electron configuration(of which one factor(the number of electrons) depends on Z) it gets organized into rows, colums, and blocks.

 

the nucleus does not explain all of this.

[Vts]

...because it is done by electron configuration(of which one factor(the number of electrons) depends on Z) it gets organized into rows, colums, and blocks.

 

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.

[swansont]

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, then you are denying the obvious.

 

Sorry.

 

How is it you can derive atomic closed shells and nuclear closed shells from this principle, and yet, they do not have the same values?

[Vts]

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?

[Klaynos]

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?

 

They have a common ancestor. That is not the same with physical phenomena.

[Vts]

They have a common ancestor. That is not the same with physical phenomena.

 

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.