What is Unique About the Highlighted Elements in the Diagram?

[jhmar]

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

 

[Redbelly98]

... 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?

 

[jhmar]

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.

 

[Redbelly98]

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

 

[jhmar]

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