#36 Logarithmic spiral supports a Cube shaped Universe not a

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


Now I am looking for some other evidence that would also support a
Cube rather than
a Dodecahedron.

(1) Evidence that EM is 90 degree angle that equates electricity to
magnetism and not
a 36 degree angle of a dodecahedron

(2) I am looking at the combination of pi and e. If the Cosmos was a
dodecahedron, does
a nesting of pentagon and circle or dodecahedron and sphere, does a
nesting relate to
pi and e? Whereas a nesting of cube and sphere or square and circle
have a direct relationship of
pi and e? You see, Plutonium Atom Totality creates pi with a value of
22 subshells in 7 shells
and e as 19 occupied subshells in 7 shells. So that there must be a
favoritism for either
the Dodecahedron or Cube but not both.



There are known facts in mathematics that support the Cube theory of
the shape
of the Universe and not the Dodecahedron.

It comes from the Golden Rectangle and is as old as the 13th century
with Fibonacci
sequence of numbers 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, ... In modern times
we call it the
Golden Proportion of a/b = (a+b) / a and is the number phi of
1.618.....

What the Golden Rectangle generates are WHIRLING SQUARES which creates
a
Logarithmic Spiral. A Logarithmic spiral is circles in motion. A
Logarithmic Spiral is dynamic
circles. So if you stopped a Logarithmic Spiral it would scribe a
complete finished circle
but as long as the spiral is in motion it makes ever larger circles.

So we have a relationship in mathematics between the number that is pi
for the relationship
of a circle's circumference to its diameter and the number e in math
which is the Logarithmic
spiral that the spiral remains the same proportion as it grows in
size.

You get the Logarithmic Spiral by Whirling Squares, where the squares
are formed from
the subdivision of a Golden Rectangle. Where the diagonal corners of
successive whirling
squares are points lying on this Logarithmic spiral.

Now here is the interesting question. Can a pentagon shaped figure act
as whirling to produce
a Logarithmic Spiral? Of course the reason I grasp at pentagon is that
it is the face of a
dodecahedron.

Now the literature of mathematics calls it the Fibonacci Spiral or the
Whirling Squares Logarithmic
Spiral, but we need a new name for this phenomenon since it relates to
important questions
in physics, namely the shape of the Universe. So I am going to give it
a new name and
call it the Atom Totality Spiral and the mathematics in basic form is
this:

e x variable = pi
square x variable = circle
cube x variable = sphere

What is intriguing about that is that you cannot have these:
pentagon x variable = circle
dodecahedron x variable = sphere

The Atom Totality itself creates mathematics and gives special
significance to two
numbers which we call pi and e. They are borne from the physical
reality of the Atom
Totality as having subshells / shells and occupied subshells / shells.
So they are borne
from physics and that means that the shape of the Universe has to be
related to pi and
e. And if pi and e are not related in a Dodecahedron to Sphere, but
are related in a Cube
to Sphere, means the Universe is not a Dodecahedron but rather a Cube.


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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

e x variable = pi
square x variable = circle
cube x variable = sphere


Sorry, I meant that to be a Matrix solution set:

e x variable = pi (note: where pi is a variable on the surface of a
sphere)
Logarithmic spiral arm x variable = specific circle
square x variable = circle
cube x variable = sphere


What is intriguing about that is that you cannot have these:
pentagon x variable = circle
dodecahedron x variable = sphere


Another Matrix solution set.

What I am after is to show that only the matrix of [square, circle,
cube and sphere] are related
in such a way that they uniquely give the logarithmic spiral.

But that the matrix of [pentagon, circle, dodecahedron, sphere] as a
matrix cannot deliver
a logarithmic spiral, nor any other combinations of figures except for
the square,
circle, cube and sphere.

It has been often said and remarked that many people feel that the
most profound
math relation is e^i(pi) = -1. The trouble with this is a inflated
veneration, since "i"
in NonEuclidean geometry has to have a value of 0. So naturally we
have
e^i(2pi) = 1 because "i" is always 0 in NonEuclidean Geometry. And
e^i(pi) is nonexistant
in Euclidean geometry because there is no number "i". The only place
where you can
have an equation of e^i(pi) equalling to something is in NonEuclidean
geometry and that equation
equals either -1 or +1 because the "i" always has the value of 0 in
NonEuclidean geometry.

So, an overinflated venerated equation.

So mathematicians have adored an equation that was basically a
vacuous, a
vacuous equation and not to be admired equation. Anything to the zero
power
is vacuously equal to 1.

But here is an equation that really should win the prize as the most
beautiful math
equation:

Squares whirled through Golden Rectangles = Logarithmic Spiral.

Now people have made long lists of where "e" is involved in a equation
or concept. Long
lists to exemplify the meaning of this special number in mathematics,
in hopes that a
new student will like one of those examples of "e" to gain some
understanding of what
"e" means. The trouble with these long lists is there is an entry
missing which should be
in every one of those lists. It involves this Whirling Squares inside
Golden Rectangles. That
"e" is related to squares related to circles and thus related to "pi".

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

skrev:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

e x variable = pi
square x variable = circle
cube x variable = sphere


Sorry, I meant that to be a Matrix solution set:

e x variable = pi (note: where pi is a variable on the surface of a
sphere)
Logarithmic spiral arm x variable = specific circle
square x variable = circle
cube x variable = sphere


What is intriguing about that is that you cannot have these:
pentagon x variable = circle
dodecahedron x variable = sphere


Another Matrix solution set.

What I am after is to show that only the matrix of [square, circle,
cube and sphere] are related
in such a way that they uniquely give the logarithmic spiral.

But that the matrix of [pentagon, circle, dodecahedron, sphere] as a
matrix cannot deliver
a logarithmic spiral, nor any other combinations of figures except for
the square,
circle, cube and sphere.

It has been often said and remarked that many people feel that the
most profound
math relation is e^i(pi) = -1. The trouble with this is a inflated
veneration, since "i"
in NonEuclidean geometry has to have a value of 0. So naturally we
have
e^i(2pi) = 1 because "i" is always 0 in NonEuclidean Geometry. And
e^i(pi) is nonexistant
in Euclidean geometry because there is no number "i". The only place
where you can
have an equation of e^i(pi) equalling to something is in NonEuclidean
geometry and that equation
equals either -1 or +1 because the "i" always has the value of 0 in
NonEuclidean geometry.

So, an overinflated venerated equation.

So mathematicians have adored an equation that was basically a
vacuous, a
vacuous equation and not to be admired equation. Anything to the zero
power
is vacuously equal to 1.

But here is an equation that really should win the prize as the most
beautiful math
equation:

Squares whirled through Golden Rectangles = Logarithmic Spiral.

Now people have made long lists of where "e" is involved in a equation
or concept. Long
lists to exemplify the meaning of this special number in mathematics,
in hopes that a
new student will like one of those examples of "e" to gain some
understanding of what
"e" means. The trouble with these long lists is there is an entry
missing which should be
in every one of those lists. It involves this Whirling Squares inside
Golden Rectangles. That
"e" is related to squares related to circles and thus related to "pi".


You are wrong about ther being 19 occupied subshells in plutonium.

There are 7 shells in plutonium, of which each have respectivly:
1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 subshells:

K L M N O
P Q
94 Pu 2, 2 6, 2 6 10, 2 6 10 14, 2 6 10 6 0, 2 6 0 0 0
0, 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 :

this gives 7 shells
and 28 subshells
and 22 occupied subshells,(if one count the O and P shells as full.)

wrote:


You are wrong about ther being 19 occupied subshells in plutonium.


Not so, and let me change the problem around so you will not stumble
on
what is counted and not counted.


There are 7 shells in plutonium, of which each have respectivly:
1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 subshells:

K L M N O
P Q
94 Pu 2, 2 6, 2 6 10, 2 6 10 14, 2 6 10 6 0, 2 6 0 0 0
0, 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 :

Here you played a trick by tacking on subshells that are superfluous
for
which you could have willy nilly said K was 2 0 0 0 instead of 2. But
I
am going to rephrase the entire question so as to corner you and you
are no longer able to play any tricks.




this gives 7 shells
and 28 subshells
and 22 occupied subshells,(if one count the O and P shells as full.)

Let me change the question so that you can be correct no matter how
you
count subshells in shells and no matter what sort of rules you apply.

We want the "Whole Numbers of 7 and of 22 and of 19. We want them
because they would all be related to one another because they were
begot
from purely shells and subshells. So, Lundslakt does not like my QM
rules
of counting. So I redirect the question to Lundslakt and let him apply
whatever
rules he wants to apply. So I ask him just find a Chemical Element
that has
these conditions of 7 shells containing 22 subshells and where 19 are
occupied
subshells. It can even be an "ion", if that is what he likes.

Now with Plutonium having 7 shells and 22 total subshells of which 19
are occupied,
I hope Lundslakt realizes that plutonium is not unique with 7 shells
and 22 subshells
of which 19 are occupied and that the surrounding Chemical Elements of
neptunium
and americium have 7 shells and 22 subshells of which 19 are occupied.
And likewise
for Lundslakt whatever counting rules he comes up with, in that the
surrounding
Chemical Elements will have 7 shells and 22 subshells of which 19 are
occupied.

What makes plutonium unique is not that it has 22 subshells in 7
shells of which
19 are occupied, but what makes it unique from neptunium and americium
is another
physics constant and special number such as the inverse fine structure
constant of
137. So is there a neptunium atom with 137 neutrons and is there a
americium atom
with 137 neutrons? Perhaps a isotope? Alright, so we have not narrowed
down plutonium
with the numbers 7, 22, 19 and 137. So we tack onto the narrowing down
another number
of physics that is special such as the Cosmic Microwave Background
radiation temperature
which is 2.71 Kelvin. Does the inside cavity of a neptunium or
plutonium or americium
atom yield 2.71 Kelvin? Now we have a uniqueness stranglehold on the
chemical elements
of neptunium, plutonium and americium for we have constrained them to
fit these
numbers of 7, 22, 19 and 137 and 2.71. Now if that is not enough to
satisfy a skeptic that
plutonium fits all the numbers better than any other chemical element
or isotope, then we
can throw in the Planck constant and throw in Boltzmann constant, and
throw in the
speed of light for the speed of light in a Neptunium Atom Totality
would be a different number
from a Plutonium Atom Totality.

So my message to Lundslakt, is stop the bickering and set up whatever
rules of counting
you want to set up and find yourself what chemical element or ion fits
7 shells and
22 subshells and 19 occupied. You do not like my way of counting,
well, count whatever suits
you, but you will end up with a chemical element or ion that satisfies
7, 22, and 19. My
way of counting is reasonable given QM in that I end up with plutonium
but also its neighbors.
Now to separate that plutonium is better than its neighbors I throw
into the numbers the
Inverse Fine Structure Constant. That really sets plutonium above its
neighbors.

Also, the fact that plutonium would have a redshift since its radius
is larger than neptunium
whereas uranium to neptunium or plutonium to americium would have a
Cosmic blue shift
due to radii of transition.

So you see, Lundslakt, you can argue and bicker all you want about my
counting, but there
is a chemical element or ion to every counter of shells and subshells
where they have
7,22,19. So you do not like my way of counting which ends with
plutonium, well your counting
ends with some chemical element.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

e x variable = pi
square x variable = circle
cube x variable = sphere


Sorry, I meant that to be a Matrix solution set:

e x variable = pi (note: where pi is a variable on the surface of a
sphere)
Logarithmic spiral arm x variable = specific circle
square x variable = circle
cube x variable = sphere


What is intriguing about that is that you cannot have these:
pentagon x variable = circle
dodecahedron x variable = sphere


Another Matrix solution set.

What I am after is to show that only the matrix of [square, circle,
cube and sphere] are related
in such a way that they uniquely give the logarithmic spiral.

But that the matrix of [pentagon, circle, dodecahedron, sphere] as a
matrix cannot deliver
a logarithmic spiral, nor any other combinations of figures except for
the square,
circle, cube and sphere.

It has been often said and remarked that many people feel that the
most profound
math relation is e^i(pi) = -1. The trouble with this is a inflated
veneration, since "i"
in NonEuclidean geometry has to have a value of 0. So naturally we
have
e^i(2pi) = 1 because "i" is always 0 in NonEuclidean Geometry. And
e^i(pi) is nonexistant
in Euclidean geometry because there is no number "i". The only place
where you can
have an equation of e^i(pi) equalling to something is in NonEuclidean
geometry and that equation
equals either -1 or +1 because the "i" always has the value of 0 in
NonEuclidean geometry.

So, an overinflated venerated equation.

So mathematicians have adored an equation that was basically a
vacuous, a
vacuous equation and not to be admired equation. Anything to the zero
power
is vacuously equal to 1.

But here is an equation that really should win the prize as the most
beautiful math
equation:

Squares whirled through Golden Rectangles = Logarithmic Spiral.

Now people have made long lists of where "e" is involved in a equation
or concept. Long
lists to exemplify the meaning of this special number in mathematics,
in hopes that a
new student will like one of those examples of "e" to gain some
understanding of what
"e" means. The trouble with these long lists is there is an entry
missing which should be
in every one of those lists. It involves this Whirling Squares inside
Golden Rectangles. That
"e" is related to squares related to circles and thus related to "pi".


This has happened to me several times before in mathematics. Where I
have a outline
of a proof of the problem, yet I cannot state the problem properly.
Sounds contradictory
that a person cannot have a proof if he cannot state the problem
clearly in the first place.
Well I have a rough outline but the statement of the problem seems to
be a rough outline
also and it seems quite logical that one can be closer to a proof of a
problem and the
statement of the problem is not crystal clear enough. Mathematics has
examples of
statements that are murky and which a clear statement was never given
such as the
4 Color Mapping Problem is an example of a problem that was never well-
defined. But here
I stray.

I have a outline of a proof that a Golden Rectangle and Whirling
enclosed Squares is a Unique
generator of a Logarithmic Spiral.

I think I have excess baggage above when I threw in circle and sphere.

Notice that the golden-rectangle and squares are self replicating
identical proportions. One could
describe it as holographic reproduction where it churns out exact
proportions whether bigger
or smaller.

This is the key to the number "e" as well as the number "phi" of the
golden-rectangle.

So an easy proof outline is that only a golden-rectangle with enclosed
whirling squares is the
only "closed figures of geometry" that can deliver identical
proportions. Now it maybe constrained
to 2-dimensions.

Notice that phi of 1.618..... when divided by 1 obviously gives
1.618.... but when divided
into 1 gives 0.618...... So the number phi is already acting like the
number "e" that is
also self repeating.

So the number "phi" is unique to rectangles and enclosed squares and
that would be the outline
of a proof.

That if you asked whether a regular-pentagon can generate through some
"whirling generator" a
logarithmic spiral the answer is no. Only a rectangle with enclosed
square can generate
a logarithmic spiral.

Fascinating how the question of astrophysics of Luminet's dodecahedron
model of the Universe
should be a Cube and not a dodecahedron, fascinating how that launched
a inquiry into
logarthmic spirals and a mathematics proof.

I believe the circle and sphere were excess baggage above. I cannot
see how a circle embedded
or enclosed in some larger closed figure such as a deformed ellipse
can generate a Logarthmic
Spiral in the way that the golden-rectangle and squares generate.

Why the number "e" and logarithmic spiral is more at home with golden-
rectangles and
whirling squares rather than with circles is a profound insight.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
What makes plutonium unique is not that it has 22 subshells in 7
shells of which
19 are occupied, but what makes it unique from neptunium and americium
is another
physics constant and special number such as the inverse fine structure
constant of
137. So is there a neptunium atom with 137 neutrons and is there a
americium atom
with 137 neutrons? Perhaps a isotope? Alright, so we have not narrowed
down plutonium
with the numbers 7, 22, 19 and 137. So we tack onto the narrowing down
another number
of physics that is special such as the Cosmic Microwave Background
radiation temperature
which is 2.71 Kelvin. Does the inside cavity of a neptunium or
plutonium or americium
atom yield 2.71 Kelvin? Now we have a uniqueness stranglehold on the
chemical elements
of neptunium, plutonium and americium for we have constrained them to
fit these
numbers of 7, 22, 19 and 137 and 2.71. Now if that is not enough to
satisfy a skeptic that
plutonium fits all the numbers better than any other chemical element
or isotope, then we
can throw in the Planck constant and throw in Boltzmann constant, and
throw in the
speed of light for the speed of light in a Neptunium Atom Totality
would be a different number
from a Plutonium Atom Totality.

A very much different parameter that exists for neptunium and
americium versus
plutonium is there atomic radii. They vary drastically in their radii.

I never really explored in any depth what the speed of light and
Planck's constant
and Boltzmann's constant would be in a Plutonium Atom Totality versus
a
Neptunium or Americium Atom Totality.

Because the radii of plutonium is sharply different from the radii of
neptunium and
americium, it behooves me to get a handle on what the speed of light
would be in
a neptunium or americium atom totality. Since the radii vary so much
that the speed
of light in these neighboring atoms should be starkly different.
Perhaps the speed of
light for a Neptunium Atom Totality would be 3.268 x 10^8 m/s and
2.7728 x 10^8
m/s in a Americium Atom Totality and only in a Plutonium Atom Totality
is the
speed of light close to 2.99 x 10^8 m/s.

Now a way of delving into this inquiry is the fact that Maxwell was
able to pull the
speed of light out of the Maxwell Equations. So the inquiry becomes
tantamount
to asking what changes would accrue to the Maxwell Equations if the
Universe was
a Neptunium or Americium Atom Totality rather than a Plutonium Atom
Totality. Would
the differing radii affect the Maxwell Equations?

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

skrev:
wrote:


You are wrong about ther being 19 occupied subshells in plutonium.


Not so, and let me change the problem around so you will not stumble
on
what is counted and not counted.


There are 7 shells in plutonium, of which each have respectivly:
1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 subshells:

K L M N O
P Q
94 Pu 2, 2 6, 2 6 10, 2 6 10 14, 2 6 10 6 0, 2 6 0 0 0
0, 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 :

Here you played a trick by tacking on subshells that are superfluous
for
which you could have willy nilly said K was 2 0 0 0 instead of 2. But
I
am going to rephrase the entire question so as to corner you and you
are no longer able to play any tricks.



The only reasonable way to count occupied subshells are as the
subshells
Ks Ls Lp Ms M p Md.....etc

that's occupied with an electron that gives:

89 Ac 17
90 Th 17
91 Pa 18
92 U 18
93 Np 18
94 Pu 17
95 Am 17
96 Cm 18
97 Bk 18
98 Cf 17
99 Es 17
100 Fm 17
101 Md 17
102 No 17
103 Lr 18

You will have to go beyond the actinide-series
to find an element with 19 occupied sub-shells.

I would count the total number of subshells as
either

1 for K
3=1+2 for L
6=1+2+3 for M
10=1+2+3+4 for N
etc.

This is so because of the quantum numbers for the electron
the first quantum number is given by the number of the shell, say N
and the second quantum number is given by one out of N numbers
in that way the number of subshells will always be a triangle-number.

And 22 is not a triangle number.

But on the other hand I think that the best way too count
would be an infinty of subshells, because there are infintly
many subshells out to infinity.

Or you could count there being 94 occupied quantum-states.

Summary:
There are no element up to 103 that have 19 occupied subshells.
And there can never be an element with 22 subshells.









this gives 7 shells
and 28 subshells
and 22 occupied subshells,(if one count the O and P shells as full.)

Let me change the question so that you can be correct no matter how
you
count subshells in shells and no matter what sort of rules you apply.

We want the "Whole Numbers of 7 and of 22 and of 19. We want them
because they would all be related to one another because they were
begot
from purely shells and subshells. So, Lundslakt does not like my QM
rules
of counting. So I redirect the question to Lundslakt and let him apply
whatever
rules he wants to apply. So I ask him just find a Chemical Element
that has
these conditions of 7 shells containing 22 subshells and where 19 are
occupied
subshells. It can even be an "ion", if that is what he likes.

Now with Plutonium having 7 shells and 22 total subshells of which 19
are occupied,
I hope Lundslakt realizes that plutonium is not unique with 7 shells
and 22 subshells
of which 19 are occupied and that the surrounding Chemical Elements of
neptunium
and americium have 7 shells and 22 subshells of which 19 are occupied.
And likewise
for Lundslakt whatever counting rules he comes up with, in that the
surrounding
Chemical Elements will have 7 shells and 22 subshells of which 19 are
occupied.

What makes plutonium unique is not that it has 22 subshells in 7
shells of which
19 are occupied, but what makes it unique from neptunium and americium
is another
physics constant and special number such as the inverse fine structure
constant of
137. So is there a neptunium atom with 137 neutrons and is there a
americium atom
with 137 neutrons? Perhaps a isotope? Alright, so we have not narrowed
down plutonium
with the numbers 7, 22, 19 and 137. So we tack onto the narrowing down
another number
of physics that is special such as the Cosmic Microwave Background
radiation temperature
which is 2.71 Kelvin. Does the inside cavity of a neptunium or
plutonium or americium
atom yield 2.71 Kelvin? Now we have a uniqueness stranglehold on the
chemical elements
of neptunium, plutonium and americium for we have constrained them to
fit these
numbers of 7, 22, 19 and 137 and 2.71. Now if that is not enough to
satisfy a skeptic that
plutonium fits all the numbers better than any other chemical element
or isotope, then we
can throw in the Planck constant and throw in Boltzmann constant, and
throw in the
speed of light for the speed of light in a Neptunium Atom Totality
would be a different number
from a Plutonium Atom Totality.

So my message to Lundslakt, is stop the bickering and set up whatever
rules of counting
you want to set up and find yourself what chemical element or ion fits
7 shells and
22 subshells and 19 occupied. You do not like my way of counting,
well, count whatever suits
you, but you will end up with a chemical element or ion that satisfies
7, 22, and 19. My
way of counting is reasonable given QM in that I end up with plutonium
but also its neighbors.
Now to separate that plutonium is better than its neighbors I throw
into the numbers the
Inverse Fine Structure Constant. That really sets plutonium above its
neighbors.

Also, the fact that plutonium would have a redshift since its radius
is larger than neptunium
whereas uranium to neptunium or plutonium to americium would have a
Cosmic blue shift
due to radii of transition.

So you see, Lundslakt, you can argue and bicker all you want about my
counting, but there
is a chemical element or ion to every counter of shells and subshells
where they have
7,22,19. So you do not like my way of counting which ends with
plutonium, well your counting
ends with some chemical element.

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

In article
,
wrote:

There are 7 shells in plutonium, of which each have respectivly:
1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 subshells:

K L M N O
P Q
94 Pu 2, 2 6, 2 6 10, 2 6 10 14, 2 6 10 6 0, 2 6 0 0 0
0, 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 :

this gives 7 shells
and 28 subshells
and 22 occupied subshells,(if one count the O and P shells as full.)

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Answer: 4.

I do not count the O and P shells as full because they are not full.

K L M N O P Q
2, 2 6, 2 6 10, 2 6 10 14, 2 6 10 6 0, 2 6 0 0 0 0, 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 17
12 14 16
Seventeen occupied sub-shells.

--
Michael Press

wrote:


The only reasonable way to count occupied subshells are as the
subshells
Ks Ls Lp Ms M p Md.....etc


Well first let me compliment you for trespassing into physics when you
never trained in physics.

To call that "reasonable" is reasonable for it comes from the Aufbau
rule.

I hate to call Aufbau a "principle" for it is not a principle of
science such as
the Pauli Exclusion Principle which is truly a principle. The Aufbau
is a Rule
of physics for it captures a large proportion of truth, but it has
limitations and
errors. Likewise for the Hund's Rule which was named properly.

Perhaps Lundslakt is confused on this subject because the Aufbau is
misfortunately
named a principle and being more inclined to mathematics, upon seen
Aufbau
principle is confusing and thus making such a "rigid conversation."

that's occupied with an electron that gives:

89 Ac 17
90 Th 17
91 Pa 18
92 U 18
93 Np 18
94 Pu 17
95 Am 17
96 Cm 18
97 Bk 18
98 Cf 17
99 Es 17
100 Fm 17
101 Md 17
102 No 17
103 Lr 18


Granted, if you apply the Aufbau Rule, you may get such rigid numbers
but the
Aufbau is merely a Rule and not physics-reality.

For a more accurate listing of the number of subshells in total for
plutonium and
the number occupied in 7 shells, well, you have to seek the true
physics determiner
which is the Schrodinger Equation, not the Aufbau that Lundslakt
relies upon.

Using the Aufbau is reasonable just as using a hand magnifyer is
reasonable for a
small insect but not for bacteria. To get accuracy as to total
subshells and occupied
subshells we turn from Aufbau to Schrodinger Equation.

Anyone can look up the "exceptions to the Aufbau" but what I am after
is where
electrons occupy more than one subshell. I believe the name used is
Hybridization
and there is not too many people working in electron configuration
hybridization.

I found one website that briefly talks of hybridization:
--- quoting ---
http://www.chem.nthu.edu.tw/faculty/...g/ch/ch_10.ppt.
d Subshells Hybrid Orbitals

This hybridization allows for expanded valence shell compounds –
typically group 6A elements, e.g., S

A 3s and a 3p electron can be promoted to the 3d subshell, which gives
rise to a set of six sp3d2 hybrid orbitals
--- end quoting ---

The Aufbau is based on "lowest energy" to fill subshells. But it is
the Schrodinger Equation
that computes the energies and with plutonium of its 94 electrons is
more computing power
required than all the computers put together.

So if a 3s and 3p electron routinely can be hybridized to the 3d
subshell, there is increasing
likelihood that in Plutonium of its 7s electrons and its 5f6 electrons
that some of them are
hybridized to occupy the 6d and 6f subshells. Now what I mean by
hybridized is far different
than what chemists mean by hybridized. My meaning is similar to the
Double Slit Experiment
where the electron splits apart at the slit and reforms at the screen.
So in my reckoning,
the electron configuration of the Chemical Elements is not this
simplistic rosy picture of
every electron as "whole" and occupying a subshell according to Aufbau
and Hund's Rules
but that there are a large number of exceptions and discrepancies with
the Schrodinger
Equation.



You will have to go beyond the actinide-series
to find an element with 19 occupied sub-shells.


That is if you rely only on the Aufbau and Hund's Rules. But if you
concede that the Schrodinger
Equation is going to give you alot of hybridization of electrons in
subshells, well, then
you may come to the same conclusions I reached that plutonium has 22
total subshells
of which 19 are occupied in 7 shells.

I would count the total number of subshells as
either

1 for K
3=1+2 for L
6=1+2+3 for M
10=1+2+3+4 for N
etc.


Rules and more rules are not physics reality. You need to look for
Schrodinger equation
solutions of the 94 electrons as a many-body problem and find out if
the 6d and 6f have
hybridization of electrons of the 5f6 and 7s2


This is so because of the quantum numbers for the electron
the first quantum number is given by the number of the shell, say N
and the second quantum number is given by one out of N numbers
in that way the number of subshells will always be a triangle-number.

And 22 is not a triangle number.

But on the other hand I think that the best way too count
would be an infinty of subshells, because there are infintly
many subshells out to infinity.

Or you could count there being 94 occupied quantum-states.

Summary:
There are no element up to 103 that have 19 occupied subshells.
And there can never be an element with 22 subshells.


Your two last sentences are probably your worst two sentences you ever
posted to the Internet.

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

wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
What makes plutonium unique is not that it has 22 subshells in 7
shells of which
19 are occupied, but what makes it unique from neptunium and americium
is another
physics constant and special number such as the inverse fine structure
constant of
137. So is there a neptunium atom with 137 neutrons and is there a
americium atom
with 137 neutrons? Perhaps a isotope? Alright, so we have not narrowed
down plutonium
with the numbers 7, 22, 19 and 137. So we tack onto the narrowing down
another number
of physics that is special such as the Cosmic Microwave Background
radiation temperature
which is 2.71 Kelvin. Does the inside cavity of a neptunium or
plutonium or americium
atom yield 2.71 Kelvin? Now we have a uniqueness stranglehold on the
chemical elements
of neptunium, plutonium and americium for we have constrained them to
fit these
numbers of 7, 22, 19 and 137 and 2.71. Now if that is not enough to
satisfy a skeptic that
plutonium fits all the numbers better than any other chemical element
or isotope, then we
can throw in the Planck constant and throw in Boltzmann constant, and
throw in the
speed of light for the speed of light in a Neptunium Atom Totality
would be a different number
from a Plutonium Atom Totality.

A very much different parameter that exists for neptunium and
americium versus
plutonium is there atomic radii. They vary drastically in their radii.

I never really explored in any depth what the speed of light and
Planck's constant
and Boltzmann's constant would be in a Plutonium Atom Totality versus
a
Neptunium or Americium Atom Totality.

Because the radii of plutonium is sharply different from the radii of
neptunium and
americium, it behooves me to get a handle on what the speed of light
would be in
a neptunium or americium atom totality. Since the radii vary so much
that the speed
of light in these neighboring atoms should be starkly different.
Perhaps the speed of
light for a Neptunium Atom Totality would be 3.268 x 10^8 m/s and
2.7728 x 10^8
m/s in a Americium Atom Totality and only in a Plutonium Atom Totality
is the
speed of light close to 2.99 x 10^8 m/s.

Now a way of delving into this inquiry is the fact that Maxwell was
able to pull the
speed of light out of the Maxwell Equations. So the inquiry becomes
tantamount
to asking what changes would accrue to the Maxwell Equations if the
Universe was
a Neptunium or Americium Atom Totality rather than a Plutonium Atom
Totality. Would
the differing radii affect the Maxwell Equations?

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

Which way is it to the nucleus of the Universe?

David Bernier
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **