The Century-Old spdf/nlms Quantum Model Is Incorrect by Joel M Williams

Joel Williams

Essay Abstract

While the periodic table of elements is well founded in its arrangement based on atomic number and elemental chemistry, the assumption that is validates the spdf/nlms quantum model is wrong. The inability of the model to properly place Hydrogen is a major deficiency. The spdf/nlms models piles electron density on top of electron density with increasingly more complex orbital shapes - orthogonality hardly obeyed although greatly touted. These problems and concerns about hybridization of orbitals and chemical reactions led me to the MCAS electron orbital model. This essay demonstrates that the MCAS model serves as the appropriate, atom- electron orbital system that configures the periodic table, provides optimal electron-orbital spatial distribution, and explains the emission spectra of the elements.

Author Bio

Joel M williams is retired from the Los Alamos National Lab. He has a doctorate from Northwestern University and 50 years of work and study in the numerous areas of chemistry.

Download Essay PDF File

James Dwyer

Hi Joel,

I read your essay with interest, although I have no applicable education or experience. I had to search a bit before finding what spdf refers to in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I'm really not able to assess your essay regarding the periodic table.

However, by investigating, I did happen upon you Gravity page. I also had difficulty comprehending your proposal for gravitation, but it did seem more substantive that some other proposals for a electromagnetic basis for gravitation. While I do suspect that electrostatic interactions may be responsible for some proximal effects (I suspect that GR's proximity compensation for Mercury's orbit is merely a fudge factor), I doubt that they play a significant role in gravitation's fundamental effects.

On your Gravity page, there's a footnote that asks two questions:

1. "Does a hydrogen star have the same gravitational constant as a neutron star with the same mass?"

2. "Closer to home, does the sun have precisely the same gravitational constant as the earth?"

I find these quite interesting, since I'd been asking others to explain, if gravitation is an EM effect, how a gravitational constant works equally well for the cold Moon as the hot Sun.

As I understand, while luminosity is most often used to estimate the mass of main-sequence stars, I think that mass estimates for non-luminous objects such as planets and even Neutron stars are often derived from their apparent gravitational effects. In this case, it seems there may be no way to independently validate the gravitational constant's veracity in representing non-luminous masses' gravitational effects.

If the total mass can be precisely independently determined for the Earth-Moon system and for the Sun-Earth, it would seem that using a single gravitational constant for both system's orbits would yield incorrect results for one or both systems.

In this regard, you might find my brief essay somewhat interesting: Inappropriate Application of Kepler's Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Spiral Galaxies Created the Perceived Galaxy Rotation Problem - Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for the Elusive, Inferred Dark Matter.

Thanks for your essay - intriguing work!

[deleted]

James,

Thanks for looking at my paper.

I see you visited my website and found my "BIG BAND THEORY" of gravity.

You may find the simplistic B/W cosmos image that I just uploaded to the web interesting:

B/W cosmos image link

Yes, there does seem to be some uncertainty is just how constant "constants" like G are. Some necessity to "wave" (sic) some thermo and classical physics for some of the postulates espoused about the cosmos.

Lots of money in the BIG and small of the universe. Lots of uncertainty, too.

Joel

James Dwyer

Joel,

If you read my brief 3 page essay, you'll find that I analyze the Keplerian planetary relations used to simplistically infer the existence of galactic dark matter and find that they were inappropriately applied to spiral galaxies... There is no valid basis for inferring the existence of galactic dark matter.

Jim

Joel Williams

I was trying to show some of the problems associated with the assumption of dark matter as something substantial enough to cause drag, etc, with a center core that is assumed to be rotating and gobbling up the "white" stuff. Good luck in your efforts to find out how the macro is connected and operates.

Joel

James Dwyer

Joel,

I see now - thanks for explaining!

Best wishes,

Jim

Jayakar Joseph

Dear Joel Williams,

As per Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, the variability of periodic table is analysed by the taxonomy of properties of the chemical elements, in that, elementary structure of a chemical element by compound tetrahedral-branes in a defined volume is representational for the restructuring of existing atomic analogy, whereas the density gradient of tetrahedral-branes and the oscillation gradient of strings, of that volume along with the conjugational boundary conditions of that volume are imperative.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Joel Williams

Jayakar Johnson Joseph,

Thank you for looking at my submission. I appreciate the effort of string theory to explain everything, but, being a practicing chemist who has worked with "solid, 3D bits of our universe", I have approached the situation of the periodic table from that point of view. I believe that the tetrahedral M-orbital of my MCAS model is more in line with your tetrahedral-brane concept than a sphere is. Inter-penetrating, opposed tetrahedrons provide the 8-corners of the cube that are the stable (inert gas) structures when filled. While the reference you provided talks about dimensionality and matter, I did not find "periodic table or element(s)". I did note in it, however, that the vanguard of experimental high-energy physics is still studying the "discrete particle nature" of matter and is doing so with great cost and effort. The experimental still has a long ways to go to get to the finest you wish.

Good luck in your effort to define all in the simplest manner.

Joel

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

[deleted]

Thank you for your observation about the ratings. The "community votes" are hidden, presumably from even the "community", but that is not even clear! I presume the "community average" is indicated when one clicks on the "community rating" button. If so, then there is not even an independent evaluation of anything.

With regard to the "public rating", its is pretty much a mockery. For example, the hugh voting for one paper, essentially 5x its closest and 10-50x higher than most. I noticed the situation early on when my ratings (I ask no one to rate me!, were 5, 10, 10 (which gave my entry a 8.3 ave which placed it in the top 10, just behind the average of the top rated one getting >50 votes at the time. Almost immediately I got a 5 to drop it to 7.5, which must have still been threatening as it was in the top 30, followed by a 1 to give me a 6.2 in the middle and no longer a threat. I have received no more ratings.

What was most obvious in the "public ratings" were the events that occurred when George Rajna's public rating dropped out of first place. It was immediately returned to first with what only "10s" could do when there were already so many ratings. What was more disdainful was that the entry Rajna's rating was behind got a number of ratings that significantly dropped it, which considering the number of votes it already had had to be 1s.

So, yes the public rating is a mockery when one can elicit by whatever means were (are being) use to rate a single entry with a huge number of what must be 10s while at the same time being able to give any "challengers" huge numbers of low ratings to insure that it remains on top.

I believe this is the reason that only the "community ratings" matter in the end, except for some "token" prize which the top "public ratings" (here clearly tainted) can claim that he/she has won. I have followed the ordering of the "community rating" button (whatever that means) and find some interesting maneuvers there too.

I submitted my entry minutes before the deadline not to win any prize, but to enter my voice about a short coming of science. My observation about the shenanigans that have played out in this "contest" insure that I will never bother wasting my time with it again.

Joel M Williams

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi

Dear Dr. Williams,

I read your essay with interest, although it has been a while since I took any chemistry classes. My general view on scientific assumptions is that they need to be repeatedly tested against rival assumptions in order to either attain greater validity or be replaced by more valid assumptions, either of which would constitute scientific progress (pretty uncontroversial). It is in this spirit that I would like to offer some constructive criticism.

Though you have raised some intriguing points, your essay is very short and compressed. I think it would have been easier for the reader if some of its points would have been elaborated on and "spread out" more.

To be more specific, I would have suggested that

1) The inversion of the MCAS diagram would have been presented in a series of steps, each accompanied by an intermediate diagram that illustrates the aufbau principle according to the MCAS model

2) Each of the contradictions and waived scientific principles required by the spdf model would have been more elaborated on and possibly assigned their own bullet points

3) The implications of the MCAS model on basic quantum mechanics would have been stated explicitly and in some detail

4) Possible testable predictions (if any) arising from the MCAS model that are different from the current model would have been included.

Again, the point of this criticism is only to help you attain what I presume is your wish, to reach peers who would seriously consider the merits of the MCAS model over the current spdf one.

I hope you found this comment useful,

Armin

[deleted]

Thank you, Armin, for your critique.

The essay was written starting just 2-hrs before the deadline when I became aware of the contest. So, my intent was to tie the MCAS model to the periodic table as I had done for the 3rd International Conf on the Periodic Table held just a few weeks before without duplicating the paper verbatim as it was the most current and easiest to amend. My impression is that any wholesale non-acceptance of the spdf model would be a serious blow to the quantum mechanical advocates as it is the original cornerstone and resolute indicator to the scientific world that the quantum theory approach is the answer to all. The MCAS model has been mainly ignored rather than refuted for nearly to decades.

With reference to your particulars, I agree that the essay is terse. It was meant to get the matter before those who would be involved in the contest rather than be a standalone, literary master-piece. In essence, the periodic table attests to the merits of the MCAS model over the spdf model which, I believe, claims the table as part of its "proof" (at least implicitly, if not explicitly!) to those being educated. I have noted some bullets re the two at CURRENT ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE OF ATOMS is WRONG!. I gave refs in the essay to the MCAS model for anyone who had the least bit of interest in something besides the accepted standard.

Again, thanks for the critique,

Joel