Geometry of Electron Shells

2*(1) = 2
2*(1+3) = 8
2*(1+3+5) = 18
2*(1+3+5+7) = 32
and so on.

By the way, this is also equivalent to:
2*1^2 = 2
2*2^2 = 8
2*3^2 = 18
2*4^2 = 32

The former method, however, is more illustrative and useful, because it also gives the breakdown of the number of s, p, d, and f orbitals.
 
There aren't

The real numbers are 2,2,6,2,6 then it gets mesy.


Not really. The question did ask about "shells", which generally are used to refer to the n levels (principle quantum numbers). The progression of available states in each shell is 1,4,9, etc, and the total number of electrons that can reside in each shell is limited to 2,8,18, etc.

BTW, Al hit on the most important point by bringing up Pauli. The Pauli principle is actually critical to the limits of 2, 8, 18, etc. Without the Pauli principle, nothing could stop you from putting any number of electrons in each shell.

Lastly, just a reminder that the limits of 2, 8, 18 etc are exactly that: LIMITS of the number of electrons that can be added to each shell. It does not say that an atom must have that many electrons in the shell. Neon does not have to have 8 electrons in the n=2 level. It does _in its ground state_ configuration, but you can most definately have Ne with a (1s)^2(2s)^2(2p)^4(3s)^2 wave function.
 
In a true debate, both sides present their evidence or theories, rather than just one being hit with questions. So allow me to ask for your opinions or theories on why there are 2, 8, 18, and 32 electrons in the shells going outward from the Nucleus of an atom.

You can of course say it is because of evolutionary chance and luck, or just say Mother Nature made it that way, or that there is no rthyme or reason or logic or matghematics or physics regarding such shells.

Or you can give your scientific reasoning, or mathematical reasoning.

I would hope for the latter rather than the former.

Thanks.


And maybe after you have FIRST been given a chance to stand behind some theory, and answer some questions about your theory.... I might give my thoughts.

But you go FIRST, the floor is yours.

It's all written down for you in a number of current high school and college
chemistry textbooks. Borrow or buy some with copyrights 2000 or later, read them. You want chem tutoring on it, $50.00 per hour. I get paid to teach Chem and Honors Chem in HS. Don't plan doing it free for a person who just looks for ways to introduce a fraudulant religion into things it has no business in (that's anything but your private life).
 
Last edited:
First, let's establish what we mean by orthogonal. Well, with vectors in Euclidean space, the concept is pretty simple: it means that they're 90 degrees apart. One test for orthogonality is that their dot product is zero. Well, it turns out that this concept is generalizable, and can be applied to much more than just vectors in 3D euclidean space. It can also be applied to functions. So what's the equivalent of taking a dot product of a function?

First, let's review dot products for vectors. Let's say we have two vectors, V and W. We can label their components as Vx, Vy, and Vz, and Wx, Wy, and Wz. Now the dot product is
V dot W = Vx Wx + Vy Wy + Vz Wz
We just multiply each component, then add them up.
Now for functions. Let's say we have functions f(x) and g(x). The equivalent to multiplying each component is to multiply the values of the function at the same point, or f(x)g(x). Now we just add all that up, or in other words, integrate the functions. So
[latex]f(x) \cdot g(x) = \int{f(x) g(x) dx}[/latex]
Let me give you an example of two functions that are orthogonal: sin(x) and sin(x+pi/2). Those two functions are orthogonal, and ANY function of the form sin(x+c) (where c is an arbitrary constant) can be expressed as some unique linear combination of those first two orthogonal functions. This is equivalent to picking out an x and a y axis in a 2D plane, and expressing any vector as some linear combination of unit x and y vectors. We could have picked other orthogonal functions: sin(x+pi/8) and sin(x-3pi/8) also work, for example. But we can only pick two functions of this form which are mutually orthogonal, any third function cannot be orthogonal to both of them.

This is only a first step, but have you followed so far?

Do you actually think DJ has the capacity and background to follow this - actually I assume you are doing it to get him to bugger off Like he said he was going to do a few threads ago - and misspoke as usual. I guess a round of DFTT is needed again!
 
Do you actually think DJ has the capacity and background to follow this

Oh, hell no.

actually I assume you are doing it to get him to bugger off

No, actually I wrote it because Splossy said that he was confused by my first response. Unfortunately my response to him still came in above where his math skills were (I had assumed he was familiar with vectors and dot products), but he was the intended target, not DJJ, and even though Splossy didn't get it, he seems to have given it an honest try. DJJ's hopeless.
 
In a true debate, both sides present their evidence or theories, rather than just one being hit with questions.

I would like to point out to Davidjayjordan that this is simply wrong, and in more than one way.

First, one cannot present evidence or theories. Evidence must always be presented. A theory cannot be presented in a debate without evidence.

Second, a debate can be held on a single theory. This may be done in two ways.

One is supplying evidence of situations that should be explained by the theory, but are explained incorrectly (the theory of 'spherical planetary orbits' was assaulted by telescope observations that disagreed).

The other is by showing the already presented evidence to be lacking (the theory of 'Sylvia Browne is psychic' relies on evidence that has no measurable basis: on vague 'feelings').

A theory must be able to withstand any question put to it within its explained scope. A theory will stand or fall on it's own evidence. No competing theory need be supplied.
 
I saw this thread in my news feed reader, and I was all excited to be able to actually contribute something, especially since we did the 3D Schrödinger's equation last week in class.

Then I come to the board ready to debunk and be awesomely knowledgeable, and I find that the thread is already two pages long, and there are at least four well-written explanations.

This forum makes me feel slow.
 
By the way, this is also equivalent to:
2*1^2 = 2
2*2^2 = 8
2*3^2 = 18
2*4^2 = 32

The former method, however, is more illustrative and useful, because it also gives the breakdown of the number of s, p, d, and f orbitals.

Good you probably got it from my website, but whatever you finnally came up with the easy to understand mathematics.... and so now let's find out what geometry fits into those figures of 2, 8, 18, 32.

Just look for another thread where I talked about them..... or read more from my website.
 
""But a full completed outer ring or shell is at 2, 8, 18, 32, etc...as their electrons have paired electronically or sexually if you like....
1 squared x 2 = [SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
2 squared x 2 = [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]8[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
3 squared x 2 = [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]18[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
4 squared x 2 = [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]32[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] And there's your SOLUTION. ""[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]From Fridays discussion board and then Sunday's posting on-line... and then read further for the geometry parallel... and post it here... or find the geometry on another thread HERE that I started.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]See it is comprehensable, [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]


[/SIZE]
 
Honestly....do you really think you are likely to have a theory that competes with the quantum theory?

Some unbelievably smart people dedicated every waking minute of their lives to come up with these theories. Maybe I'm wrong but I have a feeling your theory won't be quite so well thought out...

Buckaroo: would I be right in saying that these shapes are purely mathematical contructs anyway? Do the theories suggest those shapes actually exist in 3d space in a meaningful way?

3D Space, Splossy. Excellent, brilliant, RIGHT ON... and what basic fundamental shapes have I been trying to get you to study.. what shapes did the Ancients and the Ancient of Days dictate were harmonic and stable ?

You're almost there Splossy.... keep going. Your thought pattern is much better than others. good on ya.l
 
In accordance with your wishes, my theory is that you are clumsily attempting to set a trap while avoiding answering the points raised in your Platonic solids thread.

Now you state your theory.

No Leader, I am trying to get you to THINK and be a true skeptic that learns to use what they have learned in one thread and apply it to another.

But you are very close.... very close if you learned from the Platonic Solids thread. I mean I am giving you way toooo many hints. But sometimes that is needed to get you to connect up the dots.

So now lead Leader, and come up with the obvious.... the micro andmacro solution, that is found even in Nature... not just at the atomic level.
 
No Leader, I am trying to get you to THINK and be a true skeptic that learns to use what they have learned in one thread and apply it to another.

But you are very close.... very close if you learned from the Platonic Solids thread. I mean I am giving you way toooo many hints. But sometimes that is needed to get you to connect up the dots.

So now lead Leader, and come up with the obvious.... the micro andmacro solution, that is found even in Nature... not just at the atomic level.
Maybe I'm thick, but I cannot see the connection at all. So how about you explain it to us in full detail. I wait expectantly to be enlightened.

Oh, TRUE skeptics show their ALL workings out. So we expect the same from you. OK?

Go to it...
 
Maybe I'm thick, but I cannot see the connection at all. So how about you explain it to us in full detail. I wait expectantly to be enlightened.

Oh, TRUE skeptics show their ALL workings out. So we expect the same from you. OK?

Go to it...

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
 
*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.
 
Good you probably got it from my website, but whatever you finnally came up with the easy to understand mathematics.... and so now let's find out what geometry fits into those figures of 2, 8, 18, 32.

Just look for another thread where I talked about them..... or read more from my website.


*Sigh.*

DJJ, you have nothing to teach us. Your attempt to patronize is simply risible. Some of us have found you amusing for a while, but seriously, man, you're just out of your depth here, and maybe you should think about moving on. Try to hawk your wares at a forum more forgiving to your particular brand of nonsense, someplace where the participants won't immediately know that you're full of *****, and are willing to uncritically provide you the fawning admiration you obviously crave. Because you're really not going to make inroads at JREF.
 

Back
Top Bottom