A Structural Table of the Elements

[elas]

The aim is to construct a Table of Elements that demonstrates atomic structure. This is done by dividing the electron shells in half and listing the number of electrons in each half. Where there are an odd number of shells the middle shell is divided equally between the inner and outer halves.

Elements 1H and 2He are the only single (1s) shell elements; the 1s shell consists of nuclear electrons and therefore not divisible into ‘inner’ and ‘outer’. This causes 1H and 2He to form a separate ‘unconventional’ group being the only group that does not begin with an Alkali metal.

The first graph shows all the elements, interpretation is done using an enlargement (second graph) of the first 36 elements (four shells); interpreted as follows:

At the beginning of each group the Alkali metal has just one electron in its outer shell creating a large gap on the electron ‘surface’. As each electron is added the gap closes increasing the Casimir force in the gap between electrons. At the smallest gap where the Casimir force is at its greatest (MCF on graph), we find the highly corrosive elements of the Halogen group. Adding one more electron closes the gap creating the inert (i.e. no Casimir force) Noble gases with no gaps between electrons. With one electron less than the corrosive Halogens are the less corrosive Metalloids with a slightly larger gap between electrons.

This leads to the conclusion that it is the Casimir force between electrons that determines the nature of the elements.

 

A pdf file (all tables etc) is available at:

http://69.5.17.59/et1amdd.pdf

 

 

Edited February 19, 2009 by elas

[Kaeroll]

Whatever the basis of this - what is the point? It doesn't seem to demonstrate any useful relationships between elements as the traditional Table does. Also, while I am not familiar with the 'Casimir force' I also question the conclusion very strongly, as the existence of ions and of isoelectronic species with differing behaviour (amongst many other things) tell us that the proton number determines the element, not electron number.

[elas]

Whatever the basis of this - what is the point? It doesn't seem to demonstrate any useful relationships between elements as the traditional Table does. Also, while I am not familiar with the 'Casimir force' I also question the conclusion very strongly, as the existence of ions and of isoelectronic species with differing behaviour (amongst many other things) tell us that the proton number determines the element, not electron number.

 

The following extracts show that the experts do not agree with your statements:

 

http://chemistry.about.com/od/periodictableelements/a/periodictrends.htm

The properties of the elements exhibit trends. These trends can be predicted using the periodic table and can be explained and understood by analyzing the electron configurations

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_isoelectronic_species

The elements, which are isoelectronic with each other, differ in their chemical and physical properties,

 

My table shows how the electron configuration determines the chemical properties of the elements.

[Kaeroll]

I'm not disagreeing that electron configuration determines reactivity - that much is clear to anyone. My main question is how your table is an improvement upon the current periodic table.

[insane_alien]

I'm not disagreeing that electron configuration determines reactivity - that much is clear to anyone. My main question is how your table is an improvement upon the current periodic table.

 

your wasting your time, elas doesn't really consider reality to matter all hat much and just goes away on his own little path. its best just to ignore him.

[Kaeroll]

Quite possibly. I'd not seen any posts by this chap before, so I figured I'd treat it as 'speculation' rather than pseudoscience.

[insane_alien]

Quite possibly. I'd not seen any posts by this chap before, so I figured I'd treat it as 'speculation' rather than pseudoscience.

 

yeah, he'll post some of his crap, disappear for a few weeks and then return spouting the same old rubbish. i'm surprised he hasn't been given his marching orders already.

[elas]

I'm not disagreeing that electron configuration determines reactivity - that much is clear to anyone. My main question is how your table is an improvement upon the current periodic table.

 

The current tables do not explain mathematically, the cause of element classification, as the first reference I gave you shows, current tables explain trends. (See also the third entry in the list of 'Similar threads' at the bottom of this page).

My table shows that when the outer halves of the shells have one less electron than the inner halves of the shells the element is an Alkali metal. When there is an equal number of electrons in each half the element is an Alkaline. When the difference between the numbers of electrons in each half is at its greatest the element is a noble gas. When the number of electrons in the outer half is one below maximum the element is a Halogen.

This regularity at the beginning and end of the build up of each shell is due the maximum and minimum particle elasticity as each additional electron reduces the amount each electron is stretched over an area of the atomic surface. When the surface is fully covered the electrons are in a relaxed state at right angle to the radius while compressed by the vacuum force along the radius.

Between Alkali and Noble gas the elastic force of the electrons varies from shell to shell giving rise to the other types of elements. See pages 2 and 3 of the pdf file for the complete table.

I started work on this model (the Table of Elements is an offshoot of my main project) when insane-alien was two years old, recently I had a 1 1/2 hour debate with a bunch of academics and ended up convincing them that there just might be something in my model worth considering. Of course anything that is way out from current thinking is viewed with great caution; no one wants to say that I am right but, neither has anyone proved me wrong.

You should not take too much notice of biased opinions but concentrate on constructive criticisms; it is constructive criticism that shows the way forward, every time an error is pointed out it leads to a correction, and I have lost count of the number of revisions I have done but, when all errors are removed the truth remains and I remain convinced (by constructive debate) that I am somewhere near the truth.

 

PS It amused me somewhat to realize that I was giving people like insane-alien 'marching orders' 35 years before he was a twinkle in his old man's eye; but, Like all of us, he will mature in time.

Edited February 26, 2009 by elas

[Royston]

An appeal to tenure is meaningless, just because you've spent many years on one project, means you've spent many years on one project...it say's nothing about whether it's correct.

 

Also, I can't see any mathematical model predicting the results of your data, post it please.

 

Further, the quantum numbers that classify the periodic table are far from 'trends', I'm not sure if that term makes any sense in this context. You're basically trying to reinvent the wheel, with no improvement (let alone mention) over the Schrodinger equations, no predictions, and no solid model in which to conduct experiments with.

 

If you really had anything truly groundbreaking, you certainly wouldn't be posting it on here. There's no need to.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Snail

[elas]

An appeal to tenure is meaningless, just because you've spent many years on one project, means you've spent many years on one project...it say's nothing about whether it's correct.

 

It was a response to the crude comments of one subscriber, it was not an appeal, or an attempt to prove anything.

 

Also, I can't see any mathematical model predicting the results of your data, post it please

 

Further, the quantum numbers that classify the periodic table are far from 'trends', I'm not sure if that term makes any sense in this context. You're basically trying to reinvent the wheel, with no improvement (let alone mention) over the Schrodinger equations, no predictions, and no solid model in which to conduct experiments with.

 

If you really had anything truly groundbreaking, you certainly wouldn't be posting it on here. There's no need to.

 

The term 'trends' is used on several web pages found using 'Tables of elements' as the search key. It is not something I thought up.

 

Have done a web search and cannot find a site where Schrodinger equations are used to explain the internal structure of atoms; would greatly appreciate a reference to one that does.

 

Attempts to get my work past review have resulted in three widely different reasons for rejection:

 

Expert A wrote 'it is not science'.

Expert B wrote 'your work is pure speculation'.

Expert c wrote 'your article contains nothing that is new, you are not saying anything that is not already well know'.

 

So I am here trying to resolve which expert is right.

[iNow]

Do you see any reason why only one of them must be correct, as opposed to all three?

[elas]

Do you see any reason why only one of them must be correct, as opposed to all three?

 

The proposed model is the only model that explains the cause of the constant of gravitation.

[elas]

I'm not disagreeing that electron configuration determines reactivity - that much is clear to anyone. My main question is how your table is an improvement upon the current periodic table.

 

swansont has recently agreed that I have proposed a testable classical theory of particle structure. I have used the same balanced field structure to create a Table of Elements.

Your queery made me realise that I had not presented my proposal with sufficient clarity.

The following chart is an attempt to improve the clarity.

 

1) It shows that the first two elements and the last six elements on each shell form separate (horizontal) groups; that means that elements of a different class cannot occur until there are more the eight elements in the veritcal groups.

 

2) The last six elements are divided into two sub-groups. Note that 5 and 6 are similar in arrangement to the first two elements on each shell; that means that shell structure begins and ends with a fixed pair structure.

 

3) We see that shells occur in pairs.

 

4) The table can be used to predict the natue of elements 104 to 117 inclusive as shown in the extreme right col. with '?'; (we know that 118 is a Noble gas).

 

5) The table includes Lanthinides and Actinides in the main table and not, as in current tables; as an add on at the bottom.

 

Edited June 13, 2009 by elas

[elas]

The current explanation for the nature of the elements uses the outermost one or two electrons and also contains 'exceptions'.

 

A graph of one section of the proposed balanced field structure shows that the inner field electrons determine the class of the elements, while the outer field electrons determine the variation within each class - using all the electrons and requiring no exceptions.

 

The graph below shows a sub-group of Transition Metals and below that is a graph of all the elements with the sub-group of Transtion Metals shown in a box. (1H and 2He do not appear on the graph due to the large scale).

Edited June 28, 2009 by elas

[ydoaPs]

Here's one that I like:

[elas]

Here's one that I like:

 

Thanks, but like all existing tables it gives the observed state my proposal is an attempt to explain the cause of the observed state.

 

The Standard model uses only the internal electromagnetic force to try and explain the cause of atomic structure. My proposal is that the position of the electrons is determined by the interaction between internal and external forces. that is why the first two electrons on each shell and the last two electrons on each shell have the same structural pattern.

 

In the table below the number of electrons in each shell is shown in black type. The numbers in red type are there to show the ’missing electrons’ that give the structural sequence. This sequence is created by the internal and external forces. Between these two pairs the remaining elements are subject to a mix of internal and external force but, the structural sequence can be followed by dividing the shells (not the number of electrons) in two halves as shown in the first two numerical columns of the table.

 

 

1H and 2He only have nuclear electrons, non-nuclear shells begin with 3Li.

The boxed sections show the basic structure for the four types of elements; alkalis have the basic structure plus 1 electron. Alkalises have the basic structure plus 2 electrons. (Now for the new interpretation) Halogens have the basic structure minus one electron, only the noble gases have a perfect structure.

Edited June 29, 2009 by elas

[foodchain]

Have done a web search and cannot find a site where Schrodinger equations are used to explain the internal structure of atoms; would greatly appreciate a reference to one that does.

 

S,P,D,F shells are all generated via QM I think. They fill in a specific order also, which is applicable to all the elements, and it follows in a trendy fashion along with the periodic table. This trendy behavior is what gives rise to the octet rule per say, and why bonding behavior(all?) tends to yield something with more stable configurations like those bastard noble gases. This for the most part hinges on having a full outer shell I think, though such gets more messy when you deal with transition elements.

 

For instance with carbon, periodic table carbon, common carbon, etc...

 

Carbons electronic configuration is 1s2, 2s22p2. This means for it to have a full octet, or satisfied outer shell, it needs four more electrons, it also can bond with the four electrons in its outer shell. Doing the bonding with hydrogen to gain a molecular compound for example could fill in those last spots in the P shell, or carbons most outer shell, which is not the 1s, which is hydrogen's, but hydrogen bonding with carbon would give each hydrogen a full shell via two electrons, or 1s2 from bonding, as hydrogen having one electron can only make a single bond, yielding two electrons for each element shared in the bond. You also have max values for how many electrons can be in any giving shell, which can vary, such as with carbon or period two I think the max is eight or the second subshell in general can hold a max of eight electrons, this relates to the filling order in which you start to deal with things if memory serves like the Pauli exclusion principal as electrons are not photons.

 

Here is a couple links I think might help fill in the holes.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electron_Config_Table.jpg

 

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

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electron_orbitals.svg

 

Please note the group along with the elements, and their shells, and why the transition metals are somewhat different.

[elas]

S,P,D,F shells are all generated via QM I think. They fill in a specific order also, which is applicable to all the elements, and it follows in a trendy fashion along with the periodic table. This trendy behavior is what gives rise to the octet rule per say, and why bonding behavior(all?) tends to yield something with more stable configurations like those bastard noble gases. This for the most part hinges on having a full outer shell I think, though such gets more messy when you deal with transition elements.

 

Thanks for the references, they are not those that I have come accross before.

 

My point is that there is an alternative cause for atomic structure that gives a simpler and mathmatically more attractive layout. The underlying balanced field structure can also be found in elementary and composite particle field structure and, as my latest submission shows; it (the balanced field structure) can be used to solve the so-called missing anti-matter problem.

 

The theme linking my submissions is that there is one basic structural pattern, repeated on an ever increasing scale, as we move from elementary particle, composite particles, atoms and on to astronomical bodies (i.e. large scale composites).

 

The cause of this structural pattern is the interaction between vacuum force and matter, there is no need to invent other entities; it is only necessary to re-interpret experimental observations with strict adherence to the Law of Economy.

[elas]

I have added in the graph below the new element 122 and elements 119, 120, and 121.

 

Inserted at the top left is the continuation of the table used to construct the original graph. Inserted at the bottom right is a new table showing in the left hand column, the number of inner electrons; the centre and right hand columns show the mathematical progression that can be used for prediction.

 

Element 119 is an Alkali and element 120 is an Alkaline metal.

 

Edited December 11, 2009 by elas

[Baby Astronaut]

Is elas really on to something here? (no clear idea what, but it appears fairly elegant and perhaps consistent) Maybe a new way to predict the types of elements to be encountered down the road? Is that what you're getting at elas?

[insane_alien]

no, he's not. he just keeps on posting the same old crap that averyone got bored of years ago.

 

frankly i'm surprised this thread is still open, i'm quite sure this isn't the first he's opened on it and i'm sure a few of the older ones were locked.

[elas]

no, he's not. he just keeps on posting the same old crap that averyone got bored of years ago.

 

No one has criticised the mathematics (or table) of my particle structure equation (mr =G/2), one expert describe it as a testable theory.

With regard to my field nuclei equation (m/r = G/2) Swansont ceased replying when I produced a graph showing that my equation produced the same result as the current SM equations.

With regard to my proposal for composite particles (in particular the neutron) Swansont dismissed my proposal as ridiculous, but was unable to show any error in the mathematics or reasoning.

Swansont has not commented on my proposed ‘Structural Table of Elements’, but to my knowledge, one post graduate student reading for a masters degree, consulted his tutor about my table and his/her comment was that “I should show where I am coming from”; hardly an outright dismissal.

Swansont did challenge me to explain the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, but made no comment on my reply. However a scientist who had worked at Havard said my reply might solve a problem related to protons.

 

frankly i'm surprised this thread is still open, i'm quite sure this isn't the first he's opened on it and i'm sure a few of the older ones were locked.

 

None of my submissions dealing with these proposals has been locked. Anytime you are prepared to submit some constructive criticism I am sure we would all like to read it. Blanket dismissal does not add anything to the debate.

 

I will write a considered reply to Baby Astronaut later today.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Is elas really on to something here? (no clear idea what, but it appears fairly elegant and perhaps consistent) Maybe a new way to predict the types of elements to be encountered down the road? Is that what you're getting at elas?

 

This is a side issue to my main work. Newton suggested that the universe is corpuscular in nature and that the fundamental structure of the universe is a structure of ‘great simplicity’. I have taken both of these statements and searched for that great simplicity.

 

Spread over several submissions I have attempted to show that what we know about the force, matter, volume (radii) and wavelength of particles can be explained using vacuum force and the elasticity of matter. The conclusion is that there is only one elementary particle and only one elementary force.

To do this I have used balanced partial vacuum fields (vacuum force and elasticity of matter) where stability requires that the internal and external forces to be equal at the point of contact.

 

There is insufficient particle radii data available to make anything more than a partial case; so when I ran out of data on particles I decide to examine atomic structure: the Table of Element Structure is the result of that examination. The electron shells of each atom are divided either side of the peak of the atomic partial vacuum field and the result is shown in graph form.

 

The discovery of element 122 has made it possible to extend the graph and tables so that they now become a complete prediction theory as shown by the table at bottom right on the graph.

 

I am pleased to read that I am not alone in thinking the result is elegant, but I am most excited in being able to point out that it is as Newton wrote, a matter of ‘great simplicity’.

Edited December 12, 2009 by elas

[Baby Astronaut]

This is a side issue to my main work. Newton suggested that the universe is corpuscular in nature and that the fundamental structure of the universe is a structure of ‘great simplicity’. I have taken both of these statements and searched for that great simplicity.

I applaud the effort, yet I'm of little help in that area of knowledge, so can't verify or disprove what you've shown.

 

Spread over several submissions I have attempted to show that what we know about the force, matter, volume (radii) and wavelength of particles can be explained using vacuum force and the elasticity of matter. The conclusion is that there is only one elementary particle and only one elementary force.

That seems an entirely different beast than what you've presented here. I could see insane alien's misgivings, but even so I think if you provided the maths for a specific concept, that you did your part sufficiently at least for that one concept, regardless if your other stuff were bunk or not.....I really wouldn't know.

 

The discovery of element 122 has made it possible to extend the graph and tables so that they now become a complete prediction theory as shown by the table at bottom right on the graph.

But can you predict what types of elements the next discoveries will be, in advance? I'm not sure if you're claiming that, but if so, why not give us a list? Something we're able to check/verify in the future? Unless I'm wrong about the purpose of your Structural Table of Elements to begin with.

 

I am pleased to read that I am not alone in thinking the result is elegant, but I am most excited in being able to point out that it is as Newton wrote, a matter of ‘great simplicity’.

Just because it appears elegant doesn't mean it's correct. But your thread hasn't really gotten the full weight of the "criticism hammer" as would've a thread by most crackpots, so maybe that's indicative of something or maybe not.

 

What I'd like to know for sure: does your claim reduce/ignore the other scientifically established theories, or does it build upon it? I understand you're sort of branching into unexplored areas, rather than challenging modern understanding. Am I correct in that?

[swansont]

It will take time to go through all of the posts, but I have found one prediction that would permit falsification, and elas has apparently not followed up on actually trying to test his hypothesis on that point.

[elas]

Baby Astronaut

 

But can you predict what types of elements the next discoveries will be, in advance? I'm not sure if you're claiming that, but if so, why not give us a list? Something we're able to check/verify in the future? Unless I'm wrong about the purpose of your Structural Table of Elements to begin with.

 

The table can be used to predict the build up of shell structure. The class of the first two and last six elements on each shell are predictable; the class of those in between are not predictable.

 

Just because it appears elegant doesn't mean it's correct.

 

Agreed.

 

What I'd like to know for sure: does your claim reduce/ignore the other scientifically established theories, or does it build upon it? I understand you're sort of branching into unexplored areas, rather than challenging modern understanding. Am I correct in that?

 

It builds upon it. Current theory tells us the order in which electrons are added, my work shows how the interaction of the nuclear force and the external force play a part in determining (i.e. controlling) the total shell structure. Most of the Standard model theories are well proven and I am not qualified to disprove them. My case is that there is, as Newton stated; an underlying simplicity.

 

Swansont expects me to do my work at the professional level, for someone with my background and education that is impossible; that is why I am here and not in some journal. The most I can hope for is to raise some interest in ‘the pursuit of simplicity’ and hope others will eventually take up the banner.

 

The fact that Swansont is prepared to spend some time on my work shows that he does not see any reason to dismiss it out of hand. If the past is any guide, Swansont will find something to criticise and I will set about finding a solution; sometimes the final outcome is something of interest; that is usually the best I can achieve.

 

To conclude, I now intend to try and put the various proposals together in one article; previous attempts to do so have never reached a conclusion. I still have difficulty deciding on an order of presentation, and at times something more interesting (like 122) crops up; added to which my private life has been subject to serious upheavals for several years past. Currently things are looking brighter and there is a possibility that a determined effort will see the work assembled in one article in so far as I have gone, but it will not be complete, that will require someone of greater ability than me (Most modern theories are the work of more than one person).

Edited December 12, 2009 by elas