how to unify Hund's Rule with electron ecliptic Chapt15.59electrons-ecliptic-plane #1354 New Physics #1557 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

On May 7, 9:55Â*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Now one of my favorite chemistry textbooks was CHEM ONE by Waser,
Trueblood, Knobler 1980 where it shows an iceberg on the front cover.
On page 307 it shows a DeBroglie waves for permitted and prohibited
orbits.

Now I want to use that picture to start the mind of logic to thinking.
Now suppose we all accepted Old Physics that would have the electrons
not in a electron ecliptic, but rather have the electrons at all sorts
of angles in 3rd dimension. In my last post I proved how random angles
outside the ecliptic plane would violate the Minimum Principle that
Feynman was so adamant about.

So what I am doing here is pointing out the geometry that electrons
must be in an ecliptic plane to minimize energy of orbiting the
nucleus, and that should a photon come along and excite and electron
to move to a higher orbit or should an electron emit a photon and move
into a lower state orbit, that the electron will travel the minimum
path. The electron cannot travel a minimum path if the electrons were
orbiting at random angles, because successive orbits in a planar
ecliptic have a minimum constant distance of separation.

Now this is likely to lead to an experiment of electrons moving from
one orbit to another orbit that we should be able to tell if two
successive orbits have a constant separation distance. If the orbits
were random angles, then the separation distance is a variable. Now I
do not know if we have a precision enough experiment to tell us if the
separation distance of two successive orbits is a constant or a
variable. However, there maybe already some phenomenon of physics,
such as say polarization or photoelectric effect or that diamonds
sparkle, that already is dependent on the fact that the separation
distance is always a constant for two successive orbits.


Now Waser, Trueblood and Knobler simply call the DeBroglie wave on
page 307 as a "matter wave". But I suspect that no-one ever in their
chemistry classroom raised the question of why is this transverse
matter wave so very much different from the transverse EM wave of Old
Physics of their single transverse wave? Now of course, no student or
teacher of physics or chemistry knew of a Double Transverse Wave for
it was discovered by me in 2012 and is totally new to physics and
chemistry.

But this raises the question of why and how would physics and
chemistry have three different types of transverse waves:

1) Matter wave of DeBroglie
2) Single transverse wave of Old Physics
3) Double Transverse wave

Single transverse wave is depicted as such:

E
B

Double Transverse wave is depicted as such:

E-
M+ M-
E+

Matter wave is depicted as thus:

E-

Now how can I unify or bring together these three different transverse
waves?

Well, we need the Double Transverse Wave for the photon in order to
maintain same speed of light regardless of frequency or wavelength and
this is brought about by destructive-interference.

So that leaves me with explaining how to unify Matter Waves with
Single Transverse Waves.

Before I do that, let me bring into the picture the fact that
electrons in suborbitals pair up with a up and down electron following
Hund's Rule (page 328 of CHEM ONE).

Now in astronomy do we have a Hund's Rule? Do we have ever, two
planets in the same orbit around the Sun? Perhaps at one time the
Asteroid Belt was a application of Hund's rule in which the two
planets eventually collided and now form the rubble. And perhaps in
the exoplanets that astronomers discover almost weekly, that several
of them have evidence of two planets in the same orbit, only that the
astronomers are thinking just one planet is going around at twice the
speed.

So, how can I unify the Matter Wave with Single Transverse Wave?

Well, let me bring in another key feature. In that the electron in an
atom orbit is **perpetual motion** and that is the same as the photon
with no rest-mass. Yet we all know the electron has 0.5 MeV rest-mass
and worse yet the proton with perpetual motion has
938 MeV.

Well, I think I can rectify all of this by saying the photon
definitely has the Double Transverse Wave
while the Matter Wave and the Single Transverse Wave when combined is
a Double Transverse Wave.
Where we have this formula:

Double Transverse Wave = Matter Wave unioned with Single Transverse
Wave

Now I need a third item, as the idea that waves are of two types--
transverse or longitudinal. So that a Matter Wave is transverse but a
Single Transverse Wave is actually a transverse wave inside, but
outside is a longitudinal wave covering.

So picture the DeBroglie Matter Wave on page 307 and picture a
longitudinal wave of magnetic monopoles covering the transverse matter
wave.

In this manner we have a E- matter wave of the electron orbiting a
nucleus and its orbit involves space being magnetic monopoles of M- or
M+ as a medium in which the E- orbits.

So we have the Electron as a skewed or partial double transverse wave
of this:

E-
M- M+

And that partial double transverse wave allows for destructive-
interference so that the speed is a constant speed of perpetual
motion.

So now, we have another question, how does the second electron in a
suborbital fit with the first electron of Hund's Rule? In astronomy we
would think that the two planets in identical orbits would be spaced
about 1/2 way apart, so that one planet would be in summer while the
other in winter in their orbital path.

For electrons, it would be different in that the entire first electron
is a matter wave and the entire second electron would be a
longitudinal wave of magnetic monopoles. This is perhaps the reason
for Hund's rule is the small energy needed to convert a matter wave
into a longitudinal wave that the second electron must convert to.

So the first electron is

E- single transverse wave

and the second electron is also that, but upon conversion is

M- M+ longitudinal wave

and as the two obey Hund's rule of shared up and down electrons they
end up as

E-
M- M+ where they are a mix of transverse moving in longitudinal wave.

Sounds terribly complicated, but it satisfies those three constraints
listed-- unify, perpetual motion, Hund's rule.

--

Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.
Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
names, and only 5 posts per day, of all posters which reduces or
eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front-
page-hogging. Drexel has
done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen
he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On May 8, 2:52Â*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
On May 7, 9:55Â*pm, Archimedes Plutonium









wrote:
Now one of my favorite chemistry textbooks was CHEM ONE by Waser,
Trueblood, Knobler 1980 where it shows an iceberg on the front cover.
On page 307 it shows a DeBroglie waves for permitted and prohibited
orbits.

Now I want to use that picture to start the mind of logic to thinking.
Now suppose we all accepted Old Physics that would have the electrons
not in a electron ecliptic, but rather have the electrons at all sorts
of angles in 3rd dimension. In my last post I proved how random angles
outside the ecliptic plane would violate the Minimum Principle that
Feynman was so adamant about.

So what I am doing here is pointing out the geometry that electrons
must be in an ecliptic plane to minimize energy of orbiting the
nucleus, and that should a photon come along and excite and electron
to move to a higher orbit or should an electron emit a photon and move
into a lower state orbit, that the electron will travel the minimum
path. The electron cannot travel a minimum path if the electrons were
orbiting at random angles, because successive orbits in a planar
ecliptic have a minimum constant distance of separation.

Now this is likely to lead to an experiment of electrons moving from
one orbit to another orbit that we should be able to tell if two
successive orbits have a constant separation distance. If the orbits
were random angles, then the separation distance is a variable. Now I
do not know if we have a precision enough experiment to tell us if the
separation distance of two successive orbits is a constant or a
variable. However, there maybe already some phenomenon of physics,
such as say polarization or photoelectric effect or that diamonds
sparkle, that already is dependent on the fact that the separation
distance is always a constant for two successive orbits.

Now Waser, Trueblood and Knobler simply call the DeBroglie wave on
page 307 as a "matter wave". But I suspect that no-one ever in their
chemistry classroom raised the question of why is this transverse
matter wave so very much different from the transverse EM wave of Old
Physics of their single transverse wave? Now of course, no student or
teacher of physics or chemistry knew of a Double Transverse Wave for
it was discovered by me in 2012 and is totally new to physics and
chemistry.

But this raises the question of why and how would physics and
chemistry have three different types of transverse waves:

1) Matter wave of DeBroglie
2) Single transverse wave of Old Physics
3) Double Transverse wave

Single transverse wave is depicted as such:

Â* Â*E
B

Double Transverse wave is depicted as such:

Â* Â*E-
M+ M-
Â* Â*E+

Matter wave is depicted as thus:

E-

Now how can I unify or bring together these three different transverse
waves?

Well, we need the Double Transverse Wave for the photon in order to
maintain same speed of light regardless of frequency or wavelength and
this is brought about by destructive-interference.

So that leaves me with explaining how to unify Matter Waves with
Single Transverse Waves.

Before I do that, let me bring into the picture the fact that
electrons in suborbitals pair up with a up and down electron following
Hund's Rule (page 328 of CHEM ONE).

Now in astronomy do we have a Hund's Rule? Do we have ever, two
planets in the same orbit around the Sun? Perhaps at one time the
Asteroid Belt was a application of Hund's rule in which the two
planets eventually collided and now form the rubble. And perhaps in
the exoplanets that astronomers discover almost weekly, that several
of them have evidence of two planets in the same orbit, only that the
astronomers are thinking just one planet is going around at twice the
speed.

So, how can I unify the Matter Wave with Single Transverse Wave?

Well, let me bring in another key feature. In that the electron in an
atom orbit is **perpetual motion** and that is the same as the photon
with no rest-mass. Yet we all know the electron has 0.5 MeV rest-mass
and worse yet the proton with perpetual motion has
938 MeV.

Well, I think I can rectify all of this by saying the photon
definitely has the Double Transverse Wave
while the Matter Wave and the Single Transverse Wave when combined is
a Double Transverse Wave.
Where we have this formula:

Double Transverse Wave = Matter Wave unioned with Single Transverse
Wave

Now I need a third item, as the idea that waves are of two types--
transverse or longitudinal. So that a Matter Wave is transverse but a
Single Transverse Wave is actually a transverse wave inside, but
outside is a longitudinal wave covering.

So picture the DeBroglie Matter Wave on page 307 and picture a
longitudinal wave of magnetic monopoles covering the transverse matter
wave.

In this manner we have a E- matter wave of the electron orbiting a
nucleus and its orbit involves space being magnetic monopoles of M- or
M+ as a medium in which the E- orbits.

So we have the Electron as a skewed or partial double transverse wave
of this:

Â* Â*E-
M- M+

And that partial double transverse wave allows for destructive-
interference so that the speed is a constant speed of perpetual
motion.

So now, we have another question, how does the second electron in a
suborbital fit with the first electron of Hund's Rule? In astronomy we
would think that the two planets in identical orbits would be spaced
about 1/2 way apart, so that one planet would be in summer while the
other in winter in their orbital path.

For electrons, it would be different in that the entire first electron
is a matter wave and the entire second electron would be a
longitudinal wave of magnetic monopoles. This is perhaps the reason
for Hund's rule is the small energy needed to convert a matter wave
into a longitudinal wave that the second electron must convert to.

So the first electron is

E- single transverse wave

and the second electron is also that, but upon conversion is

M- Â*M+ longitudinal wave

and as the two obey Hund's rule of shared up and down electrons they
end up as

Â* Â*E-
M- Â*M+ where they are a mix of transverse moving in longitudinal wave.

Sounds terribly complicated, but it satisfies those three constraints
listed-- unify, perpetual motion, Hund's rule.


Well let us see if we can just derive Hund's Rule from the Maxwell
Equations. From CHEM ONE textbook Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980 page
328 they cite the rule as this:
--- quoting ---
Hund's rule: the order of filling degenerate orbitals in an atom (or
molecule) is such that as many electrons remain unpaired as possible.
--- end quote ---

Now which Maxwell Equation would such a rule likely emanate forth? I
suspect the Ampere law that says to the effect that parallel currents
attract and antiparallel currents repel. Now I need the Minimum
Principle of Feynman which would involve the Coulomb law. And the idea
being that, filling unpaired is the least energy (shortest path taken)
and filling occupied orbitals is less energy than going to the next
subshell. So I need the Minimum Principle as Coulomb law and the
Ampere law.

So let me analogize to planets taking Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus as
examples for a metaphorical Hund's rule.
We place a planet in each orbit, and now we have a new planet to fit.
It would take more energy to place it after Uranus orbit, so instead
we place it as a moon around Jupiter. Then we have a new planet to
place and here again, it takes less energy to place it as a moon of
Saturn than to place it as a independent planet after Uranus. Now I do
not know if that is the justification of moons of planets as some sort
of astronomy Hund's rule, but if EM forces control all of physics, we
would be wise to consider if planetary satellites is a form of Hund's
rule.

Now earlier today I wrote that the electron could be either having a
transverse wave form or a longitudinal wave form such as the
transverse matter wave of E-

and the longitudinal wave form of M- M+ where M stands for magnetic
monopole.

So now if we had a transverse wave electron of

E-
M+ M-

alone in a p orbital and then introduced a longitudinal wave electron

M+ M-
E-

then the two combined to form a complete p orbital with one up
electron and one down electron would look like this:

E-
2M+ 2M-
E-

Now where does the Ampere law enter this picture?
It enters when the electrons are single in a orbital for all of them
are lined up as "up electrons" and thus attractive and lower energy.
Attraction is lower energy than is repelling state.

But when the electrons have a choice of going to the next higher
subshell, that energy is greater than the energy of electrons coupled
in the same orbital, and the coupling is the magnetic monopoles
attracting. The magnetic monopole attraction is greater than the
electron to electron repelling.

In our planet analogy, the attraction of the planet as a moon to
Jupiter is less energy than the placement of the planet in a higher
orbit beyond Jupiter.

What I am trying to finagle is the transverse matter wave of one
electron and the longitudinal wave of the second electron to make that
up and down coupling of electrons to be less energy than going to the
next higher subshell.

--

Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.
Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
names, and only 5 posts per day, of all posters which reduces or
eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front-
page-hogging. Drexel has
done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen
he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Now there are exceptions to Hund's Rule for that is why it is a rule
and not a law of physics.

The exceptions start with chromium at 4s1, 3d5 and then copper at 4s1,
3d10.

Now what I have started to do in explaining Hund's Rule by deriving it
from the Maxwell Equations, is that the rule is an interplay between
electrons as matter transverse waves and electrons as longitudinal
wave. Electrons as matter transverse waves want to be single and
unpaired and form parallel attraction of the Ampere law. However, this
condition of being single and unpaired and attractive force runs out
in a higher subshell of orbits, as the second electron in an orbital
with a longitudinal wave is less energy than the new higher subshell.

So how do we picture a up electron with a paired down electron in a
suborbital? In Old Physics we just used words of paired, and "up and
down", and spin but we never really gave rhyme nor reason to any of
these words as a mechanism of the Maxwell Equations.

This is where New Physics comes in with the Maxwell Equations as
axioms and ultimate explanation. So we have an up and down electron
and what we do is replace up with a electron as matter transverse wave
and we replace down electron as a electron of longitudinal wave. And
for paired suborbital electrons such as 4s2 in zinc we picture that
as

E-
2M+ 2M-
E-

which is a combination of the matter transverse wave

E-
M+ M-

and the longitudinal wave

E-
M+ M-

An electron as a matter transverse wave requires less energy than an
electron that is a longitudinal wave. And one way to picture this is
the E- the electric field is predominant for the matter transverse
wave, whereas in the longitudinal electron the M+ and M- are
predominant.

Now they pair in a suborbital because they follow the Ampere Law of
parallel attract so that if the two electrons were matter transverse
waves, they would repel and not form the suborbital pairing. So that
for zinc 4s2, 3d10 as the last electron to enter zinc it was a matter
transverse wave electron, but switches over into a longitudinal wave
electron to fit into that last suborbital pairing up with the other
electron.

Now in astronomy, since the Maxwell Equations are the same axioms over
all of astronomy we have a similarity of how stars, planets and their
moons come into existence and how they orbit. Now we do not have a
Nebular Dust Cloud origin of the Solar System but rather a Dirac new
radioactivities of constant accretion of new particles that gives
birth to the Sun and solar system and slowly grows them. And in that
process, we should see something similar to a Hund's Rule. So if we
imagine the planets as electrons, their orbits should follow some
mathematical rule and we see it in the Titius Bode Rule, but we want
something similar to the Hund's rule of filling up orbits and whether
planets share the same orbits.

We do not see any orbits with two planets in them, however we do see
planets with many moons. Jupiter has 67 moons and Saturn approximately
62 moons. So as the Solar System was built from Dirac New
Radioactivities particles over 9-8 billion years ago, many of those
new particles went into building moons around existing planets rather
than a newer planet beyond Pluto or the Kuiper belt.

Now the orbit of the Asteroids was likely a orbit that had two planets
in it, two the size of present day Pluto perhaps (have to check on
their relative masses), and that perhaps they existed for 4 billion
years in a orbit of two planets when one caught up with the other and
collided and broke apart into our present day Asteroid belt.

--
Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.
Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
names, and only 5 posts per day, of all posters which reduces or
eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front-
page-hogging. Drexel has
done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen
he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies