An interesting read, I have to say. But I'm quite puzzled, perhaps, because I'm not a theoretical chemist. It's also a long time ago that I read something regarding protons, neutrons, and electrons. But why is a tetrahedron basically important in this idea? In other words, why do you have to start with a tetrahedron as a foundation to this theory?
You may want to put the triangle examples below the explanation, though. I was confused why Ne has 8 protons and 8 neutrons only to read afterwards that it's about protons and neutrons added after each row.
Thank you Yves first for reading my paper and second for esteeming it enough to respond. First let me say that this is a geometric model for the atom, it is not all inclusive as neither is the quantum model called qed, quantum electrodynamics. qcd, quantum chromodynamics is the model of the nucleus. My tetrahedral based model combines elements of both. All of these models are used to explain the phenomena illustrated by the periodic table. My geometric model is superior if for no other reason than that it is simpler and at this point has no paradoxes. The most important thing for you to understand at this time is that all of these math models are just that, models of chemical, electronic, and nuclear behavior. This is the Einstein interpretation, as I see it. The Copenhagen interpretation is more complex but centers around the assumption that calculus math is profound and interprets or explains the universe as we know it and has an essential roll in its creation, destruction, and indeed in its continued existence.
Once again, thank you for your response and I look forward to hearing from you again should the occasion arise. WSAton
Well, William, to be honest, I don't have any basic understanding in those quantum models you mentioned. Neither do I have any in those interpretations of quantum mechanics. But the way I see it, your model is an interesting idea, and I believe that many people have desire to understand the observed behavior among atoms in the periodic table, including the diagonal relationship.
I hope you continue to expand your model and keep up the good work. I'm also pretty sure that people with more profound understanding than I will gladly lend you some support.
Nice explanation! I don't know much about quantum, but I like the geometric incorporation! I'd like to hear more.
Thanks Daniel, thank you for responding and thanks for wanting to hear more. I have been working on these theories since approximately 1995 but in reality much longer; ever since I first heard about the divide between the Einstein interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation. In 1995 I wrote a math paper 'Order out of Chaos' on the nature of infinity and its relationship to pi. This was an essential paper, essential to understand calculus and its relationship to the "mathematical" sciences. Also at this time I tried to publish a paper on what I called 'the Creation Science Treatment of the Photon'; Quantum Mechanics began with Einstein's the 'Photoelectric Effect' for which he garnered his Nobel Prize. My paper was peer reviewed by a professor recommended by the Georgia Institute of Technology where it was to be published. The reviewer did not like the paper and could not bring himself even to call it by name. But his only expressed complaint was that it lacked a mathematical foundation, which it already had based in simple geometry. What he meant to say, as I see it, was that my paper did not agree with the Copenhagen interpretation of reality. I never bothered to show him the math paper; the Copenhagen interpretation is not called the orthodox interpretation for nothing. So I virtually gave up the quest and in the ensuing years I have lost or thrown out all 1,000 copies of both papers in my possession with exception of those mailed to various periodicals and the two math papers required by the Library of Congress for a prima fascia copyright that they only say they keep but for 5 years. These lost papers laid the foundation for my model of the atom.
In 2006 I once again took up the quest when I say my daughter playing with a tetrahedron made with from a magnetic toy set. It was the spitting image of something I had thought and scribbled about but never completed a model of. I was amazed how sturdy it was and that the small stuffed and furry friend inside was well caged. Within weeks I was emailing my paper on the periodic table to a hundred or so colleagues with very little response; mostly I'll get back to you. No one really took it seriously. I guess they did not have the other two papers but in reality they must be perfectly satisfied with what they have. Some people have said, James Webb of the University of New South Wales Australia for one, that revolutions in science seem to occur every 70 years, about the life span of a professor.
So now you know what I've been through. I think chemists are more open; we mostly deal with that which is visible, terra firma.
Thanks for reading and let me know if you have any specific questions and I will respond to them since it is easiest to know where your reader's interests are before you break off into a deep discussion.
Thanks for the reply! I'm in school at University of Missouri-Kansas City, so I'm still developing my understanding in the chemistry field as a whole. I have a BA in chemistry that I'm trying to upgrade to a BS. Basically, I'm trying to say that I am by no means an expert, but I've learned many of the models to explain bonding. I find your theory very interesting, and I need to do some reading before I can really formulate specific questions. Lastly, would you mind if I showed your paper to some of my friends and/or professors at school? Thanks again for the reply!
Thanks again for joining the discussion. Please share the paper all you like but remember that you never know who is going to listen and exactly what their response is going to be. Some people are heavily invested in math and quantum mechanics and resent anyone who might not toe the party line. There is a lot of money and politics involved whenever you broach these topics. I personally provoked a teacher so much when I disagreed with him about a quantum chemistry interpretation that I received my grade in the class from the dean and not my professor. I even felt so strongly that I launched an investigation after graduation about secret notes passed by the professor to other members of my class. I had the evidence in the professors own hand writing but the panel decided against censure. Anyway, I hope you are more successful than I was; it has been many years since then and a lot has changed in science.
Hey thanks for the permission! I understand what you're saying completely about them being vested in the "science of today" and resisting change. But like you stated, big changes are something that takes a lot of time for people to consider. A new theory could derail what people think is the truth. I was looking for triangular magnets to play around with in this context, because I'd like to see what it can do. I'll let you know what I come up with. And as for presenting the idea, I am going to more play the "I don't know about this because I lack the knowledge" card, just to ask for opinions. Thanks again for the reply!! I really like your theory! Take care in the meantime!!
I should say that I'm quite amazed by your story, William. I got a class last year by a physics professor who explained how rough the life could be in the science community: having papers rejected, dealing with reviewers, having ideas stolen on the way, etc. I don't know whether the life is easier in chemistry.
I don't know what you're doing right now, but is there any way you can publish the papers in university journals or open-access ones? Is it possible to publish them in arXiv? I know that you may get no or little response if you publish them in journals with a low impact factor or in obscure journals, but you'll never know. Perhaps, someone will pick your idea up and collaborate with you.