Chapt13.40093 Aufbau Principle derived purely from Maxwell Equations #835 New Physics #955 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, I am in excellent shape here, because all that is needed is
for the experiments to catch up to the theory. The theory is that
superconductivity is subshell switching and that superfluidity with
BEC are spin switching.

Which of those two experiments is easier to construct and perform? I
would guess superconductivity = subshell switching because it should
be easy to take palladium with its ground state 4d10 and to show that
at 3 Kelvin, that ground state is no longer 4d10 but rather
4d8, 5s2 and so that an electric current has no resistance because it
travels through the unimpeded pathway of the 2 unoccupied 4d
suborbitals. Superconductivity, whether an element or a compound is
the creation of a ground state, opening a free passageway, free of
resistance to an electric current. This explains why copper, silver
and gold, the highest normal conductors can never be superconductors
because there is no free passageway to open up.

As we lower the temperature, not only can there be a possible subshell
switch, but there can be a possible spin shift of an electron, such as
He-4 and He-3, and the alkali metals. A spin switch or spin shift
creates superfluidity or BEC depending on the atoms used. And here
again, we must await experiments to prove that a spin switch occurred.

No point in furthering the theory until the experiments have caught up
with the theory.

So in the meantime, let me continue with a logical continuity of
pursuit. I have these two chapters in a sequence and I should continue
it with the Aufbau.

Chapt13.40091 Superconductivity as subshell switching in New Physics

Chapt13.40092 Superfluidity and BEC as spin switching

Chapt13.40093 Aufbau Principle derived purely from Maxwell Equations

At this juncture, logic dictates that I have a large and wide open
issue to settle. I need to show that the Aufbau Principle of Quantum
Mechanics is actually and truly a Maxwell Equation derivation. In
other words, all of quantum mechanics is nothing more than
elaborations of the Maxwell Equations.

So I need to make progress on the Maxwell Equations deriving the
Aufbau Principle. And at first glance it appears very difficult, but
not really. For if we look at the anomalies of the aufbau in building
the subshells in the d and f subshells that we have a large number of
anomalies. So that hints that the quantum mechanics is insufficient
and needs something more powerful in order to have reality match
theory. And there is only one thing remaining in physics other than
quantum theory and that is the Maxwell Equations. So where quantum
mechanics has a lot of anomalies, it takes the Maxwell Equations to
remove the anomalies. But those are very complicated details.

The method I am going to pursue to prove that the Aufbau comes from
Maxwell Equations is more on a mathematical means of proof. Most
physicists were never mathematicians and so most physicists would not
understand that in mathematics there are two proof methods, the direct
and the indirect. The direct method is more detailed in that it is a
step by step progression, while the indirect method places all the
known truths of mathematics and pits them against a false assertion.
If the known truths of mathematics are violated by the new false
assertion, we accept the reverse assertion as being a truth itself.
Most physicists are foreign to the mathematical method of indirect
proof, because most physicists really do not have enough logic to do
either physics or mathematics. But let me continue.

If you look at the periodic table, as shown by Wikipedia for they
attach the f orbitals instead of the usual disattached two rows at the
bottom.

If you look at the Periodic Table, it looks rather funny or odd or
misfigured. It looks sort of like this I_____I

The misshappened and odd look of the Periodic Table is because the
table really does not belong on a flat surface as boxes that are all
the same size.

Now in the Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, 7th edition,
Considine, volume2, 1989, page 2158 shows the Periodic Table in a
circular format.

Alright, the Aufbau Principle is succintly put into this format:

1s /
/
2s 2p
/
3s 3p 3d

4s 4p 4d 4f

And that format is shown by Oxtoby & Nachtrieb on page 520 of their
textbook Principles of Modern Chemistry, 2nd edition, 1990

It is a wedge or triangle shape Aufbau which goes from

1s to 2s, then 2p to 3s. If we draw arrows in the above we have

1s

2s

2p 3s

3p 4s

3d 4p 5s

Those buildings have 2, 2, 8, 8, 18 electrons.

Now we inject the Indirect Method proof of mathematics.

1) Suppose the Aufbau is not the Maxwell Equations.

2) Then the Aufbau is not the Coulomb law of inverse square

3) The Coulomb law of inverse square is spherical, the surface of a
sphere and the interior of a sphere

4) The Aufbau of quantum mechanics is linear plane geometry with the
pattern 2, 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32,..

5) The pattern 2,2,8,8,18,18,32,32, . . . is spherical and inverse
square and not linear plane geometry.

6) contradiction to 1) and hence the Aufbau is the Maxwell Equations

REFLECTION: it is apparent that the Aufbau is not linear because it
goes from 2 to 8 which is a cubing of 2^3 = 8. So the Aufbau should be
a sphere surface, not a flat plane Euclidean geometry. And the
diagonals used in the Aufbau is a reflection of the fact that Maxwell
Equations have magnetism which is orthogonal to that of electricity.
The fact that the Maxwell Equations have electricity and magnetism and
being orthogonal to one another should be instantly reflected by the
Periodic Table and it is when you represent the Table as a circular
table as seen in Van Nostrand's Encyclopedia.

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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now let me try a different proof approach that the Aufbau of Quantum
Mechanics is really borne of and derived by the Maxwell Equations, and
that QM is not even a theory of science.

A theory of science needs to possess the two big "c's". The two big
c's are coherent ideas and comprehensive ideas. A theory is coherent
if all its parts fit together and meaningfully related to other
physics. A theory is comprehensive if it governs all of physics, not
just some remote corner. Quantum Mechanics is neither coherent nor
comprehensive for as we see in superconductivity, QM fostered a Cooper
pairing of electrons in hopes of explaining the phenomenon. A totally
new mechanism and in violation of the Maxwell Equations. Another
example is the Higgs boson to try to plug an explanation for mass of
particles.

On the other hand, with the Maxwell Equations as axioms, we never hunt
for a brand new mechanism for a newly discovered phenomenon. We use
just the four Maxwell Equations to solve superconductivity, to solve
superfluidity, to solve mass of particles. We never devise alien
mechanisms, never heard of before, just to plug an explanation. With
Maxwell Equations, we just figure out which of the four equations has
a role in the explanation.

Now earlier today I gave a "indirect proof" that the Aufbau was
Maxwell Equations derived, which depended on the easily noticeable
feature of the Periodic Table, that it is a circular table more than
it is a linear progressive table, and being circular, means that the
force of physics that causes circularity is the Coulomb force as
inverse square law. So that means the force that is driving the Aufbau
is all resting upon a Coulomb force.

But let me try to give a Direct Proof of Physics that the Aufbau of
the Periodic Table of Elements comes from the Maxwell Equations.

A direct proof that hinges on the idea that if what holds together
electrons in an electron configuration of atoms is purely the Maxwell
Equations, then there is no room for anything of a quantum mechanics.

1) The Chemical Bond of one atom with another atom is of two forms,
either a magnetic force-- monopoles forming dipoles (Coulomb) or a
Ampere Law attraction that two currents in parallel have a force of
attraction. As far as I can tell, those are the only two forms of
attraction in the Maxwell Equations.

2) Electrons in atoms are attracted to one another and by one another,
so that those electrons must be either magnetic attraction or Ampere
attraction.

3) Protons in nuclei are attracted to one another via monopoles
forming dipoles or by Ampere law of two parallel currents attract.

4) Are there any other forces that can cause protons to attract en
masse and can cause electrons to attract en masse? No, and the gravity
force is too small. And this book shows that the strong nuclear force
is a Coulomb EM force.

5) That leaves the direct conclusion that the Aufbau is nothing more
than the four Maxwell Equations.

QED

Now one has to ask, why the idea of electron configurations, why those
electrons attract one another via Maxwell Equations, to form that
network of electrons, why no-one in the 20th century realized that?
Was it because upon learning that Coulomb force is repulsive, also,
that a quantum mechanics mechanism was invoked, never allowing the
idea that Maxwell forces can do it all. That you do not need quantum
mechanics, nor need to find a new mechanism.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now what if we derive Hund's rule totally out of the 4 Maxwell
Equations, would that prove that Quantum Mechanics is all a subset of
the Maxwell Equations? Well, not exactly because some QM can thus hide
in the space and ordering of space, the aufbau principle. So I need to
show that not only does Hund's Rule come from the Maxwell Equations,
but I need to show that the sequence 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d,
4p, 5s, 4d, 5p, . . comes from the Maxwell Equations.

I need to show that Space is filled with electrons from the Maxwell
Equations as well as Hund's Rule.

Let me focus on Hund's Rule in this post and deal with Space later on.
Although the Space problem looks to be a Archimedean Spiral of

2
8
8
18
18
32
32
50
50
.
.

So as for the Space issue and Maxwell Equations, we simply ask, is the
lines of force, the Coulomb law that of a Archimedean Spiral, an
arithmetic spiral, not a geometric spiral? If the answer is that the
Maxwell Equations are a arithmetic spiral and not a geometric spiral
of force law, then, combining that with the Hund's Rule as Maxwellian
derived, will be a 3rd proof that Quantum Mechanics is nothing more
than detailed applications of the 4 Maxwell Equations, the symmetrical
4 Maxwell Equations.

In the CHEM ONE textbook on page 328 defines the Hund's Rule as this:
"the order of filling degenerate orbitals in an atom (or molecule) is
such that as many electrons remain unpaired as possible."

So how is the Hund's Rule totally derived from Maxwell Equations? Well
if you review the 4 symmetrical equations (that includes magnetic
monopoles) that in the Ampere law we have the attractive force that
parallel currents attract. And we have the Coulomb law that monopoles
become dipoles and attract.

So that if you had say the atom nitrogen it would fill 1s with 2
electrons and the 2s with 2 electrons and with the remaining 3
electrons would leave one electron in each of the 3 suborbitals of 2p.
It would not pair those 3 electrons.

So how does the Maxwell Equations derive the Hund's Rule. Well, it
takes less energy and more attractive force results when nitrogen has
3 electrons unpaired and attracting one another via Ampere law than if
nitrogen had the 2p orbitals paired with only 1 unpaired electron. You
would have the Coulomb dipole attractive force of 1 paired set of
electrons but no more attractive force, whereas in the Ampere
attractive force you have all three electrons in attractive force.
So basically, the Hund's Rule is the interplay of Ampere parallel
current attraction and Coulomb dipole attraction.

Now if I can show that the Space filling of electrons is a Archimedean
Spiral and the lines of force of the Maxwell Equations is a
Archimedean Spiral, then I will have taken out all the quantum
mechanics of the Aufbau and derived the Aufbau from purely Maxwell
Equations.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Aug 26, 12:50 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

Now I have done this before, many weeks ago.

Instead of spending a lot of time deriving each of the principles of
Quantum Mechanics, especially the Aufbau Principle, why not just prove
that discreteness comes from perpetual motion.

The only thing that quantum mechanics claims different from previous
physics was "discreteness" that energy comes in packets. So the only
thing different about quantum mechanics of 1900-1930 from that of the
Maxwell Equations of 1860s, if I can prove and show that discreteness
is a form of perpetual-motion, and since the Maxwell Equations are
about perpetual-motion, then I would prove that quantum mechanics is
nothing but a subset of the Maxwell Equations.

So I can go through each principle of quantum mechanics and show that
it can be derived by the Maxwell Equations. Or, I can simply prove
that discreteness is derived from perpetual-motion, and by doing so,
dismiss the need to prove each principle is derived from Maxwell
Equations.

I vaguely remember the tenure of that proof I gave many weeks ago. It
requires gaps between numbers, discreteness, in order for infinity--
perpetual motion to exist. So if you have perpetual motion, you have
infinity, only you are required to have gaps between numbers, hence
discreteness.

I am going to call this the 4th proof of the Aufbau Principle derived
from the Maxwell Equations. But I can substitute any Quantum Mechanics
principle and prove it by this proof that discreteness comes from
perpetual-motion.

So this proof is exciting for it penetrates the very depths of
physics, that atoms are perpetual motion, and thus atoms have discrete
quantities of energy, time, momentum, position, and finally, since the
Maxwell Equations are perpetual motion that all of quantum mechanics
is inside of the Maxwell Equations.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Aug 27, 3:51 am, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 12:50 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

(snipped)

Now I wrote that last night before going to bed and was rather groggy
and so the clarity and grammar has a lot to be desired. So let me try
to clarify what I meant by that post last night.

What I meant to say was that the Maxwell Equations are equations of
perpetual motion. And that the only real fundamental difference
between Quantum Mechanics of 1900 through 1930 was that it had the
concept of "discreteness". The physicists of the 20th century saw that
QM had discreteness and that the Maxwell Equations did not have
discreteness and so they concluded that the QM was broader and more
basic than the Maxwell Equations. However, the physicists of the 20th
century never realized that perpetual motion itself is the concept of
discreteness, at least perpetual motion can derive discreteness.

So in the 20th century, the physicists threw out Maxwell Equations and
called them Classical Physics because they did not have
"discreteness". They were wrong. The Maxwell Equations have a concept
that is far more broad than discreteness itself. Perpetual Motion is
the essence of atoms and it is the essence of the Maxwell Equations.
So by starting with the Maxwell Equations and perpetual motion we
derive discreteness. And by doing such, we have proved that the
Quantum Mechanics is a tiny subset of the Maxwell Equations.

So instead of taking every principle of quantum mechanics and proving
that the Maxwell Equations derives that principle, instead, we simply
prove that perpetual motion derives discreteness, and so that every
principle of QM is Maxwell Equation derived as automatic.

This is big science, the depth, the heart and soul of physics, in that
the Maxwell Equations are the heart and axioms of all of physics. The
ultimate conclusion of that idea, is that the Universe itself is one
big atom.

I am getting near to the end of doing New Physics and will return to
doing the Atom Totality as the last chapters of this text. Since all
of physics is from the Maxwell Equations, I no longer need to write
about the Big Bang theory as a rival to the Atom Totality theory. For
if you understand that all of physics comes from the Maxwell
Equations, then the theory of the Universe must be an atom. Only atoms
have electricity and magnetism. So in writing the remaining chapters,
I no longer need to mention the Big Bang. For that would be like
reading a modern day astronomy book where the authors constantly feel
they need to prove the rivalry between a Ptolemy solar system and a
heliocentric solar system.

So in the remaining chapters of this book, I am going to edit much of
the old editions and emphasize the fact that the Maxwell Equations are
the axioms of physics which implies the Universe is a atom itself.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, the only thing different from quantum mechanics when it was
introduced
in 1900 was discreteness, or energy comes in lumps or packets. It was
thought in 1900 through 1930 and thereafter, that this discreteness is
unique and that it does not derive from anything else. Or, at least no-
one ventured to think that discreteness comes from another concept--
perpetual motion. No-one thought there was a concept more powerful,
more overarching, more comprehensive than discreteness. But in fact,
if one puts their mind to it, the concept of perpetual motion is more
powerful and derives discreteness.

Perpetual Motion comes from the Maxwell Equations in that the lines of
force of the Coulomb law are always in motion. We see this in the
perpetual motion of permanent bar magnets.

So what is the proof that perpetual motion derives discreteness (or,
derives the quantum)?

The proof comes out of mathematics and is easy to explain, but very
difficult to reason or make commonsense out of. Here is the proof.

Proof that Perpetual Motion derives Discreteness
1) Perpetual means infinite, not finite. Let us take 10^603 as the
border between finite and infinite. The number 10^603 is special
according to my book Correcting Math, but here I will not detail that
specialness. Here I will take as given that 10^603 is this borderline
between where finite ends and infinity begins.
2) Since 10^603 is the last finite number and the largest finite
number, means there is a smallest finite number as the inverse,
1*10^-603. So between 0 and 1*10^-603 exists no numbers.
3) So all the finite numbers that exist are starting with 0 and adding
1*10^-603. The next finite number is 2*10^-603, the next is 3*10^-603
so that between 0 and 1 in mathematics there exists just 10^603
numbers in all. And in between those finite numbers are gaps or holes
of no numbers. This is familiar to physicists as quantum mechanics,
where energy, momentum, position, time come in discrete packets.
4) So that is the proof, that if you have infinity, or perpetual-
motion, you have a largest finite entity, which means you have a
smallest finite entity and all the other entities are additions of
this smallest finite entity.

QED

Now it is easy to see how the physicists of the 20th century missed
and bypassed that proof. Discreteness looks totally different from
perpetual-motion. In fact, our commonsense would say if you have
perpetual-motion, you should have continuity, not packets or lumps.

However, if you stop to think long enough on the subject of perpetual-
motion, you would recognize that the key concept in packets, perpetual-
motion, discreteness, infinity, the key concept is a border or
borderline. Can we even have a finite versus infinite if the one has
no border with the other. Can we even recognize energy or momentum or
time or position if they have no borders to distinguish them from
their environmental surroundings. For example, the border of "air",
for air is inside Earth and composes the atmosphere. So what is the
position of air or the energy of air or the momentum of air when it is
not clear about the air inside of Earth.

So in effect, when Quantum Mechanics was borne in 1900 with the Planck
quantum and the Bohr atom, they focused on "discreteness" and they
never focused that discreteness was derived from perpetual-motion.
That perpetual-motion is a larger concept and that perpetual-motion
was embodied by the Maxwell Equations. So that if in year 1900,
someone had given this lecture, that the physics of the 20th century
would have put the Maxwell Equations as the axioms, the central heart
of physics, and that physics would have not been caught up with all
its fakery that ensued in the 20th century.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Aug 28, 12:24 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

It sure would be nice to have a physics proof that the concept of
discreteness (comes in packets or lumps) is derived from a larger
concept of Perpetual Motion.

I have such a collaborating proof.

It starts out with two metrics, that of distance and that of time. If
we said the Universe was composed of a total distance of 10 meters and
10 meters only then we would have lumpy packets of 1/10 meter as the
smallest such distance unit. If the Universe were in total 10^603
meters then the smallest such distance unit is 10^-603 meters.

Now the reason the Mathematics Proof works is because of the
borderline between finite and infinity causes there to be a smallest
finite number of 10^-603 if infinity starts after 10^603, and so, all
the finite numbers that exist are the adding in succession of
1*10^-603 to 0. There are 10^1206 such finite numbers in all, and
there are gaps between each of those successors, a gap of 10^-603.

That is a mathematical proof.

But can we strap or saddle physics so that it has a purely physics
proof. Well there is, in the form of the speed of light as a upper
limit constant. In effect the speed of light is the last and largest
finite speed and beyond can be said is infinite speed.

So using the speed of light, we can say that 1/c should be the
smallest speed possible. And the total number of possible speeds in
the Universe is that of c^2.

Now is the speed of light a item of perpetual-motion? It surely is for
it has no rest-mass, meaning, it never comes to rest but is in
perpetual-motion.

So the speed of light is 3*10^8 meters/second which means the smallest
speed in the Universe is 3*10^-9 meters/second.

Now according to Wikipedia, they list some slow speeds and the speed
of continental drift is about 10^-8 m/s and the speed of a snail is
about 10^-3 m/s.
But those speeds are not a uniform measure of speeds. If we wanted a
uniform measure we would restrict ourselves to only the astronomy
speeds. The speed of sound is about 343 m/s, and the speed of the
space shuttle is 7,800 m/s.

When light is slowed down by entering a dense medium, it has an upper
limit of slowing down which is 1/c.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Aug 29, 12:23 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 12:24 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
>

(snipped)

Now according to Wikipedia, Harvard Univ has slowed light down to 17 m/
s but that is nowhere close to the limit prescribed by the above of 1/
c. So here we see fundamental constraints of slowing down light that
it cannot even approach its ultimate limit of 1/c.

Now recently I was reading about "slowed light" and the experiments of
Hau at Harvard which is seen on YouTube. And an earlier chapter in
this book is about the Doppler Shift of light. That New Physics has no
Doppler Shift of light, and Old Physics was never bright enough nor
logical enough to realize a doppler shift exists with sound waves, but
never light waves for that would violate Special Relativity.

It is the credit to Harvard that they do experiments on slowing down
light and achieving a 17 meter/second speed, nowhere near 1/c speed.
But it is the discredit of Harvard researchers that they were never
bright enough to see that the color of light into the experiment is
the same color throughout the experiment. In my earlier chapter, I
said it was white light going into the BEC box, white light through
the box and white light coming out of the box. That is wrong for
watching the experiment on YouTube it was yellow sodium light that Hau
used and it was yellow going into the box, yellow through the box and
yellow coming out of the box.

In other words, never a Doppler Shift of light. So if in any
experiment in physics that slows down light, we should expect to see a
redshift and at 17 m/s we should see a huge redshift. But in reality,
no shift at all occurs.

So in other words, the Slow Light Experiments have one major proof of
physics to date, and that proof is that the Doppler shift of light is
a bogus idea. That light does not perform a Doppler Shift and the
proof is the Slow Light Experiments.

But the interesting question that I pose, is whether any type of Slow
Light Experiment can come close to a speed of light that is 1/c.
According to New Physics, there should and must exist a speed that is
1/c, but there are no slower speeds than that speed of 1/c.

Now some may say there is a 0 speed. But that is false also, because
there is a temperature 0 Kelvin for which is impossible to reach, and
it is impossible because there is always some sort of movement in the
atoms involved, or the vacuum of space. And that movement allows 1/c,
but nothing smaller nor 0 itself.