Unique Version of the Periodic Table

rlduncan · Mar 31, 2003

Along with the nuclear atom article I have posted a unique version of the periodic table. A must see. Notice the center column of semimetals and the overall symmetry. Can be seen at www.svcc.edu/~duncanb/[/URL]

ObsessiveMathsFreak · Apr 2, 2003

Umm... Isn't your table just the regular one rotated 45^o counter clockwise?

Ben-CS · Apr 2, 2003

Yeah, OMF, I was thinking the sam thing. Actually, it is more like a chopped up version of the standard PTE, part of which has been rotated 45°. Also, RLD incorrectly labelled germanium and antimony as metals. Ge and Sb are semi-metals. (Kinda throws off the symmetry, though, doesn't it.)

elas · Apr 10, 2003

I have had a look at your proposal and cannot see a clear explanation as to the underlying cause of your proposal (this may be my fault, it is not necessarily a criticism).
Using the members list you can click on my home site, go to the Elasticity page and scroll down to fig E-7. There you will find a diagram that goes some way towards explaining the cause of the groups in the existing tables (I have a better diagram to hand that will be added soon).
Each group consists of either increasing or decreasing elasticity, but never the two together. Given that the elements are not created in mathematical order, I am not able to offer a reason as to why this should be so.
Either we have the order of creation wrong, or there is some other underlying factor that remains to be discovered.

FZ+ · Apr 10, 2003

It looks pretty, but do we have a theoretical justification?
How for example can you just snip out the d-block elements and Lanthanide/ Lanthanide series? hmm...

rlduncan · Apr 10, 2003

Actually they are still there and are located at the bottom of the page. This arrangment has been published in the Journal of Chemical Education. The justification for the arrangement comes from Pascal's Triangle which was also arranged at a diagonal. You must insert them just as you would the f-electrons in the usual periodic table.

elas · Apr 11, 2003

The following quote is from a private message received from riduncan.

The arrangement of the periodic table is not as important as the fact that the Electronic Configuration Pattern can be found in Pascal’s Triangle. Now the question becomes, why?

I believe it is essential to understand what causes the pattern to come into existence and answer the question 'why'? as follows-

Because the number of electrons that an atom can contain and their position within the atomic structure is determined by the density and elasticity of the Electron Binding Field and that is of course, determined by the number of nucleons. The fact that the numerical formula is Pascal’s Triangle is a decision of God or nature, after all, any organised structure must be describable in terms of a mathematical formula. Pascal simply discovered one of nature’s structural formulas. There is nothing magical about triangular numbers given that the force of infinity must impose some order on the universe.

rlduncan · Apr 11, 2003

Obviously there is nothing magical about any of the patterns found in Pascals's Triangle. But this misses the point. It's the origin of the Electronic Configuration Pattern and the inferences that can be drawn. It is perfectly logical to conclude that there is a link between all the naturally occurring patterns (triangular, square, arithmetic n, Fibonacci Sequence, and now Electronic) and that link has to do with Binomial Expansion Theorem. This discovery will lead to a better understanding of the periodic atoms and even quantum physics.

elas · Apr 12, 2003

We are looking for answers in two different ways. You take the numbers and look for extensions, I start by asking how can I create a universe from nothing.
It is interesting to note that we meet in Pascals triangle where the subscript on the second column from the right gives my proposed arrangement for corpuscular quantum in leptons (2:1 3:2 and 4:3)and the second and third columns from the right (top to bottom) give my proposed arrangement for corpuscular quantum in quarks 2:1 3:1 3:2 4:2 4:3 5:3 and 5:4.
The problem with giving mathematics precedence over logic (i.e. looking for the cause) is that the start of the quark sequence (2:0) is missing; whereas asking the questions how and why leads to the full sequence that is 2:0 2:1 3:1 3:2 etc.

vlamir · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by rlduncan
... Can be seen at www.svcc.edu/~duncanb/[/URL] [/B][/QUOTE]
Greetings Robert,
Your article "The Geometry of the Nuclear Atom" deserves much attention.
It concerns your approach to research of a construction of atoms and molecules as polyhedrons. I understand and support this method.
But before, I would like to make two remarks.
1) In fig.1 you display a molecule of hydrogen. But in hydrogen molecule internuclear distance is equal 0.84142 angstroms, instead of 0.741. In a molecule of deuterium internuclear distance is equal 0.7417 angstroms. In this case, in a molecule in fig.1 it is necessary to add two neutrons. Accordingly, in fig.2 the inner shell of carbon will have the configuration of a molecule of deuterium, but not of helium.
2) The volume of helium atom equals 45 cubic angstroms, whereas the volume of carbon atom (at calculation on parameters of diamond) equals 5.577 cubic angstroms. Therefore, the helium atom cannot be located inside carbon atom. Is probable, the matter is "vice versa".

I consider, that the atoms - polyhedrons and molecules - polyhedrons can be joined with each other by edges and by sides, both on the outside and from inside.

Ben-CS · May 8, 2003

I suppose you could map Pascal's triangle to the P and S blocks, but what would that correspond to? The graph can technically be extended indefinitely to the lower left, but not the right. This leaves out the bulk of Pascal's trianlge. How can you call that symmetric? And what about the elements Rutherfordium, Dubnium, Seaborgium, Bohrium, Hassium, Meitnerium, and Darmstadtium? Why did you leave them out?

elas · May 9, 2003

It seems to me that the Table of Elements is explained in one of two ways, chemically or the purely mathematical. Both these approaches, although correct in their own ways; fail to explain the underlying stucture and more importantly the cause of the underlying structure. I hope to present my views on cause and structure in the near future and would be interested to know of any other explanation; not just diagrams of nucleons and electrons, but an explanation of why they assemble in their particular order with their particular differences.Such as what causes the division of the table into series and groups.

rlduncan · May 11, 2003

Hi Vlamir,

Thank you for your encouragement and interesting comments. Could you refer me to your source on the bond length of .84142 angstroms for the hydrogen molecule versus the .741 angstrom internuclear distance for deuterium. My figures for the hydrogen molecule were taken from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 82nd Edition. Also, I agree that the helium atom may not be in the interior of the carbon atom. Instead, it is quite possible the helium structure is simply fused to the carbon atom but this arrangement, I believe, is still determined according to sphere packing arrangements of hexagonal and cubic packings.

elas · May 13, 2003

On my site I used the Force line, Electron Binding Energies and radii to show the orbits of the electrons. I also show that the fractions found in TFQHE can be found in naturally occurring electromagnetic waves.
I Have now found that the same sequence occurs in the structure of atoms. This indicates that the true solution is that waves are formed out of equal quatities of force carrier and that the electrons have a wave orbit as well as an atomic orbit hence 1/2 spin and the apparent indeterminent position (due to wave rotatation. That is to say that electrons rotate on the wave amplitude while at the same time orbiting the atomic nuclei.

vlamir · May 14, 2003

Greetings Robert,
I have taken data concerning internuclear distance for hydrogen and deuterium from the Physical Handbook (encyclopedia), 1988th Edition.
But Handbooks do not yield explanations, how these internuclear distances are gained. Therefore essence of the problem is, what geometrical forms have the stable particles.
I am familiar with hypotheses by several men, which consider, that the stable particles have ring geometry.
My calculations and volumetric simulation have shown, that the hexagonal packing (as in graphite) can be implemented only at presence in an atom-polyhedron of dihedral angles of 90 degrees. Herewith has appeared, that in structure of graphite there are stratums of diamond clusters, each of which consists of six atoms of carbon.
To construct similar packing of spherical particles it is impossible.
In this connection I am interested with questions, what angles exist between links and what equal bond lengths in simple compounds of hydrogen and carbon (methane, acetylene, ethylene).
I am physicist, but not the chemist. I have not appropriate literature and, unfortunately, I am badly oriented in organic compounds and organic crystals.

Vladimir

Unique Version of the Periodic Table

Similar threads

Hot Threads

I 'Set of pearls' mathematics / physics help

B Is space stretching or is new space being created?

B MIRV vs very high-yield bomb effectiveness

I How can magnetic fields contain energy?

B Generator shaft rotation through spring and magnet (Is this feasible in Physics?)

Recent Insights

Insights Quantum Entanglement is a Kinematic Fact, not a Dynamical Effect

Insights What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight

Insights Relativator (Circular Slide-Rule): Simulated with Desmos - Insight

Insights Fixing Things Which Can Go Wrong With Complex Numbers

Insights Fermat's Last Theorem

Insights Why Vector Spaces Explain The World: A Historical Perspective