Geometry of Electron Shells

Hokulele said:
Now that is clearly a kitten recipe. I have never tried the kitty-flavor before!
Click to expand...

Kinda reminds me of that Warner Brothers cartoon, Feed the Kitty, where the big bulldog, Marc Antony, adopts the l'il kitten and goes to pieces when he thinks it's been baked into a sugar cookie... adorable.
 
Hokulele said:
*sigh*

OK, I am going to try one more time, Davidjayjordan, as there may be some hope here, for the lurkers if nothing else.

In another thread, you made mention of "frustration". Yes, that is exactly it as you are applying the wrong set of rules to the SMMT forum. Let me give you an analogy.

In basketball, there is a fairly fixed set of rules that allow everyone to play and enjoy the game. If I were to come into your basketball game and claim that "Traveling doesn't apply to me!" or "I can stand in the paint as long as I like!", you would be pretty frustrated, and not enjoy the game all that much.

That is essentially what you are doing here. You are telling us that advanced math (calculus), scientific methods (experimentation, physical observations, etc.), and logic no longer apply.

I have found a lot to learn here, and relearned much that I have forgotten. (Thanks for the refresher on orthogonal definitions!) It has been some time since college calculus and physics. I am disappointed that you haven't chosen to learn and research any of the information presented to you.

Before you come back and make another post, I sincerely recommend you read the following book.

ZERO: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Charles Seife

It is actually a fascinating book. It presents the history of the concept (including some Babylonian stuff that may interest you) and introduces concepts discussed here in a fashion that people without a full college level education can understand. This includes calculus, logic, and the golden ratio.

If this appeal to you falls on deaf ears, I am afraid I will fall back on recipes, as it will then be apparent you are not here to engage in a discussion or debate, but rather a lecture or sermon.
Click to expand...

Huk, if there is anything I know it is the rules of basketball, as the rules apply to all, even if referees don;t understand this concept in the lower ranks.

For I have been a referee, but more importantly knew basketball and the RULES for all, when playing the game in real life. To know the rules you usually have to have had experience in playing under the rules not just judging the rules or applying the rules.

Ha, for under the RULES, I became a world class athlete, but gave it up to become a full time missionary. A much better CHOICE with more important RULES

SEE basketball articles..

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan//Abouttheauthor.html
 
Last edited:
Actually I am HERE on this thread to see alternative ideas to MINE on Electron SHELLS, and how they were created and WHY ?
 
Davidjayjordan said:
Huk, if there is anything I know it is the rules of basketball, as the rules apply to all, even if referees don;t understand this concept in the lower ranks.

For I have been a referee, but more importantly knew basketball and the RULES for all, when playing the game in real life. To know the rules you usually have to have had experience in playing under the rules not just judging the rules or applying the rules.

Ha, for under the RULES, I became a world class athlete, but gave it up to become a full time missionary. A much better CHOICE with more important RULES

SEE basketball articles..

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan//Abouttheauthor.html
Click to expand...

Yes, I knew your basketball background, which is why I used this analogy. And this actually brings up why I hate using analogies when discussing science. People get hung up on the analogy (in this case basketball), and miss the real point.

Please read my entire post, think about it, then respond. Otherwise, it is back to kittens and recipes.
 
Davidjayjordan said:
Not a problem Zep, but the way to teach is to try and get people to think and understand the fundamentals and then try to piece it together themselves rather than just being told.

You guys have some of the basic numbers right, it was just a simple progression...... and now find the simple basic geometric figures that fit this design of 2, 8, 18, 32 points or positions.

We may not get it exactly right, but we can find the BASIC PATTERN, and then from there, get more refined just as in PROPHECY mathematics.

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/ProphecyTimeLines.html
Click to expand...
This is NOT a school lesson. This is NOT how you do science. I am waiting for YOU to tell US your amazing knowledge.

Let me repeat: TRUE skeptics show their ALL workings out. So we expect the same from you.

All I can see from you is trolling to push up your own website counters. If that's all you are here for, the game has been obvious for some time. And it's failing. Your website is so full of random ◊◊◊◊◊ that it makes no sense at all. None. Nada. Nothing.

Now. Lay out HERE all your amazing theories and have them examined by people who do this for a living. If you won't then we will be forced to conclude you are simply full of it and a troll. Or that you need to have your head shrunk. And I am pretty sure that you can guess which way the general consensus is heading about now.

OK? Now get on with it, why don't you.
 
Dumb question: could the patters we are seeing be an artifact of our numbering system in base 10? What if we were in base e? Maybe this it totally ignorant of me, but how do we know our base 10 number system provides the best way to interpret nature?
 
Trying2Bopen said:
Dumb question: could the patters we are seeing be an artifact of our numbering system in base 10? What if we were in base e? Maybe this it totally ignorant of me, but how do we know our base 10 number system provides the best way to interpret nature?
Click to expand...
The numbering base makes no difference to the actual count of phenomena (especially integers). It's merely a convenient convention. Computers (and calculators) use base 2 internally, but we use base 16 by convention to "program" them. In the past we have used base 8 as well, plus some more exotic variants.
 
Zep said:
The numbering base makes no difference to the actual count of phenomena (especially integers). It's merely a convenient convention. Computers (and calculators) use base 2 internally, but we use base 16 by convention to "program" them. In the past we have used base 8 as well, plus some more exotic variants.
Click to expand...



I agree, sometimes looking at base 2 can make sense when base 10 does not.

Base 2 is computer oriented, via either plus or minus, or open or closed circuits... but that's more significant for the 432 harmony than HERE, but then again because electrons have to be paired, or opposite so as to balance... then good point.

PS) Why am I here to learn, by sharing what we know or think we know, we can check out our ideas and progress....only false skeptics are into nithingness and no progress. True skeptics come to learn and gain INsights and CONNECT up the worlds in which we live.
 
Buckaroo said:
Unfortunately, there isn't a really simple answer that goes beyond the descriptive and into the explanatory. Basically the quantum numbers and particular shapes of the orbitals that describe the electrons in an atom fall out of solving Schrodingers equation, which is a partial differential equation that gets pretty hairy once you go beyond very simple cases.

One of the upshots of this equation is all the chemical bookkeeping we learned in high-school or college chemistry. I was frustrated as hell with these courses for not being able to tell me why the rules were the way they were, until I took my first quantum mechanics class.
Click to expand...
Actually... :D

Never mind the nutter who started the thread. Here's my understanding of how it works, and Buckaroo, anything you can contribute to this understanding without simply deriding it I think many here will find helpful.

The way this works is, the Laws of Spin and Statistics say that since electrons are fermions, they can't occupy the same state or they will cancel out, and that would violate energy conservation, charge conservation, and lepton number conservation. This is a direct result of the fact that half-integer spin implies that if you rotate a fermion 360 degrees, it is distinguishable from its unrotated counterpart; it must be rotated 720 degrees to be indistinguishable. Thus, only one electron can occupy one quantum state at one time.

Now, electrons can have either spin 1/2 or spin -1/2. So two electrons can occupy the same quantum state provided their spins are opposite (which of course means that that quantum state is actually two states with opposite spin, thus avoiding the prohibition on two being in the same state). The remainder of the problem has to do with the available 3-dimensional standing waveforms that can form at the various levels of energy available around the nucleus.

The electrons must each occupy a standing wave around the nucleus; if it was not a standing wave, then they would not be captured, or would fall into the nucleus. The energy levels depend upon the charge on the nucleus, the charge on an electron, the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, and the mass of the electron. Given a certain strength of the EM force, and a certain charge on the electron, and a certain mass for the electron, the only thing that varies is the charge on the nucleus.

For each increment of charge on the nucleus, for an electron of fixed charge and mass, with a fixed strength of the EM force, there will be a set of standing waves available at various distances. The first standing wave set at the smallest possible distance (call it a circular standing wave) will have only one member; multiply by the two spins and that's two. The second standing wave will have four members; this is because of the four-d structure of spacetime; add one degree of freedom, you get three from the dimensionality of space; multiply by the two spins and you've got eight. Add one more degree of freedom, you get sixteen. But wait- now, your last several overlap the next when you add another degree of freedom- so no electrons use them. You wind up with nine; with two spins, that's eighteen. Add one more, you get sixty-four- but only the first sixteen are usable, the rest overlap. Two spins gives thirty-two.

I love how fools think these are "magic numbers" because they read it in some fifty-year-old physics text. They are nothing but simply the masses, charges, interaction strengths, and obvious physical characteristic of 4-dimensional spacetime. Just by having three space dimensions, and charges, masses, and EM force strength like they are, those "magic numbers" just fall out, naturally, with no need for any help from jebus.

David, this is a skeptic web site. You are in the wrong place. You cannot win; you can only end up looking foolish, because you are entering a battle of wits unarmed. If I were you, I'd never post here again.
 
At least I'm happy about this thred. It's served to firm up my fuzzy memories of quantum mechanics learned at college so long ago. If we're looking at brilliant insights leading to a beautiful and elegant solution, those of Messrs. Schrodinger and Pauli spring to mind - guys with just a little more education and intelligence than your average guy.

I find it sad that Erwin Schrodinger is generally remembered by the lay public for his ironic "cat in a box" thought experiment. The Schrodinger wave equation was an astonishing piece of work, giving a mathematical expresion of the properties of the building blocks of matter. The Schrodinger equation gives rise to three quantum numbers and works for hydrogen atoms, but this doesn't explain what we see in more complex atoms. Pauli had the insight that electron spin (+ 1/2) needed to be factored in. The Pauli exclusion principle beefs up Schrodinger's equation and helps it to take on the whole panoply of matter.

I think the most amazing thing about Schrodinger and Pauli's work is when it took place - the middle 1920s. This was before the neutron had even been discovered.

They didn't just sit down and think of something beautiful and simplistic. However, it is as simple as it needs to be to explain all the features we see, and it hasn't shown any cracks even eighty years later. Any simpler explanation has got some fearsome opposition coming, and it has to be able to explain at least everything that S and P's work does.

Schrodinger's maths isn't that hard if you apply yourself, and it's such a powerful tool.

These guys were scientific heroes.
 
Schneibster said:
Actually... :D

Never mind the nutter who started the thread. Here's my understanding of how it works, and Buckaroo, anything you can contribute to this understanding without simply deriding it I think many here will find helpful.

The way this works is, the Laws of Spin and Statistics say that since electrons are fermions, they can't occupy the same state or they will cancel out, and that would violate energy conservation, charge conservation, and lepton number conservation. This is a direct result of the fact that half-integer spin implies that if you rotate a fermion 360 degrees, it is distinguishable from its unrotated counterpart; it must be rotated 720 degrees to be indistinguishable. Thus, only one electron can occupy one quantum state at one time.

Now, electrons can have either spin 1/2 or spin -1/2. So two electrons can occupy the same quantum state provided their spins are opposite (which of course means that that quantum state is actually two states with opposite spin, thus avoiding the prohibition on two being in the same state). The remainder of the problem has to do with the available 3-dimensional standing waveforms that can form at the various levels of energy available around the nucleus.

The electrons must each occupy a standing wave around the nucleus; if it was not a standing wave, then they would not be captured, or would fall into the nucleus. The energy levels depend upon the charge on the nucleus, the charge on an electron, the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, and the mass of the electron. Given a certain strength of the EM force, and a certain charge on the electron, and a certain mass for the electron, the only thing that varies is the charge on the nucleus.

For each increment of charge on the nucleus, for an electron of fixed charge and mass, with a fixed strength of the EM force, there will be a set of standing waves available at various distances. The first standing wave set at the smallest possible distance (call it a circular standing wave) will have only one member; multiply by the two spins and that's two. The second standing wave will have four members; this is because of the four-d structure of spacetime; add one degree of freedom, you get three from the dimensionality of space; multiply by the two spins and you've got eight. Add one more degree of freedom, you get sixteen. But wait- now, your last several overlap the next when you add another degree of freedom- so no electrons use them. You wind up with nine; with two spins, that's eighteen. Add one more, you get sixty-four- but only the first sixteen are usable, the rest overlap. Two spins gives thirty-two.

I love how fools think these are "magic numbers" because they read it in some fifty-year-old physics text. They are nothing but simply the masses, charges, interaction strengths, and obvious physical characteristic of 4-dimensional spacetime. Just by having three space dimensions, and charges, masses, and EM force strength like they are, those "magic numbers" just fall out, naturally, with no need for any help from jebus.

David, this is a skeptic web site. You are in the wrong place. You cannot win; you can only end up looking foolish, because you are entering a battle of wits unarmed. If I were you, I'd never post here again.
Click to expand...

Fantastic stuff. I hope this is accurate because this makes sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom