What is Unique About the Highlighted Elements in the Diagram?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jhmar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms Elements
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the unique properties of certain highlighted elements in a diagram related to elementary particles. The original poster seeks clarification on how these elements were grouped and what makes them distinct. Participants emphasize the need for more context about the diagram's origin and the grouping criteria to provide meaningful insights. The conversation also touches on the challenges of linking theoretical concepts from fractional quantum Hall effect experiments to atomic structures. Ultimately, the poster acknowledges a mistake in their calculations but remains curious about the highlighted elements' significance.
jhmar
Messages
77
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am an amateur researching elementary particles; on tabulating atoms the elements, atoms of the highlighted elements in the diagram below formed one group (of two possible groups); I should like to know if there is anything unique to the highlighted elements:
http://69.5.17.59/itptn5.102.gif

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


jhmar said:
... atoms of the highlighted elements in the diagram below formed one group (of two possible groups) ...

I'm having trouble understanding this statement. Elements don't just form a group by themselves, somebody has to group them.

If you explained more about where this diagram came from, who grouped the elements together like that, and details of what that person is doing, then it might be possible to answer the question.

We really need more information from you in order to help. Just what is it about the elements (or elementary particles) that you are researching?
 


Redbelly98 said:
I'm having trouble understanding this statement. Elements don't just form a group by themselves, somebody has to group them.

If you explained more about where this diagram came from, who grouped the elements together like that, and details of what that person is doing, then it might be possible to answer the question.

We really need more information from you in order to help. Just what is it about the elements (or elementary particles) that you are researching?

In FQHE experiments particles are pass through a magnetic field at right angle to the magnetic force. This is done in what is described as a two dimensional plane, the mathematical theory developed from FQHE experiments cannot be applied to the natural three dimensional world (according to Jainendra K Jain).
I have tried to show that as an atom consists of electrons orbiting at right angle to the nuclear force, it should be possible to produce a three dimensional theory using the shell electrons of an atom of each element. My first attempt was dismissed as ‘not scientific’, a revision was dismissed as ‘speculation’ and the reviewers of my latest revision summarized as follows ‘there is nothing new in your paper; you are not saying anything that is not already well known’.
After some reflection I decided that there was room for improvement in presentation and started yet another revision.
A key factor in FQHE is the production of Hall fractions; I used electron binding energies to produce fractions for electrons within atomic shells. In both cases the incompressible fractions are less than 1.
As an afterthought, I tried to produce fractions using complete atoms and found that the highlighted atoms have fractions greater than 1. I would have dismissed this as a useless doodle but, there seemed to be something about their position in the table of elements that made me stop and think that perhaps I should check it out before dismissing it completely. In short it is one of those irritating observations that one is reluctant to dismiss, but cannot explain why.
Thanks for showing an interest, needless to say I shall be jumping for joy if you could provide a favorable answer; but, not to disappointed if there isn't one.
 
Last edited:


Sorry, while I've heard of the fractional quantum Hall effect I am not really familiar with it.
 


Redbelly98 said:
Sorry, while I've heard of the fractional quantum Hall effect I am not really familiar with it.

Thanks, now realize I inadvertently introduced atomic radii into calculation (clicked on wrong col.In Excel prog.). With one exception highlighted elements are longest radii of each atomic shell. Useless information, of course; sorry to have wasted your time,
regards
jhmar
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top