http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209182405.htm

Interesting stuff.

Jess Tauber

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120-cell

This is a 4D analogue of the dodecahedron, consisting of 120 dodecahedral cells.
Nice round number, perhaps relevant for the PT.

Slices off vertices here give a tetrahedron as cross section, which may or may
not be a concidence.

What the relation might be to a tetrahedral arrangement of close packed spheres
is anyone's guess- math buffs chime in?

Note also from the Wiki page above the dependence on phi, the golden ratio. See
also for the 3D dodecahedron:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icosahedron

Perhaps nexted solids?

Jess Tauber

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/heaviest-element-copernicum-100224.html

Jess Tauber

I was taking a look tonight at indirect periodic connections in the angled ring
tetrahedral model. For starters, all normal groups are broken up as has been
described previously, with odd numbered periods on one side of the tetrahedron,
and even ones on the other side of the rotational axis that goes right through
the center of the figure starting at the middle of one edge and going through
the middle of the opposite edge at right angles to it.

Vertically stacked sets of odd or even s,p,d, and f are not in direct contact.
Instead, from the perspective of an octahedron, they are indirectly connected
along the three diagonals.

A number of nonprimary kinships (after Bent) map like this as well.

I've previously described 'tilings' that I believed could account for such
connections as the Knight's Move. These tilings come in a number of different
types, with different angles between spheres in the close-packed tetrahedron.

What I found tonight is that the distances between sphere centers appears to be
quite lawful. For those tilings that have three spheres forming a line segment,
with a fourth sphere at some angle to these three, the distances between the
distal sphere of the three and the fourth all pattern as square roots of odd
integers from 3 to 9.

I don't know how far this goes, but it is quite interesting. Is there any
relation between the distances, angles, etc. that can say something about the
particular chemical or physical behaviors involved in the kinships? THAT would
be something. Stay tuned.

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142300.htm

Jess Tauber

On again, off again. The Rebuilding The Periodic Table discussion at Sciencebase
has been very lively, at many points heated, and we owe a debt of gratitude to
David Bradley for allowing us to abuse, er.., use his blog space and his
hospitality. I perceive, though, that even his patience is wearing somewhat
thin.

However more off the beaten track the discussion here is, it is dedicated to the
topic. If folks are concerned that we are to some extent invisible, I am quite
open to any suggestions as to how to make this space more well known. I'm not
exactly sure how to do this utilizing the Yahoo Groups functions (a number of
years ago they seemed automatically to list their Groups in the Yahoo search,
but they don't seem to be anymore).

In any case things have been awfully quiet here since everyone picked up and
moved to David's. If he really is serving us with our walking papers, then I
invite everyone back here.

Thus far I haven't had to quash any fireworks- people have been very well
mannered (perhaps that's why people fled?), but maybe a little chili pepper
wouldn't hurt too much, provided that it doesn't get in the eyes.

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

Jess,

have you tried to attract Henry Bent to this blog yet?
I think that his presence is needed in orther to make this discussion moving.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/light-bends-matter-100324.html

This have any atomic-scale implications?

Jess Tauber

Hi Jess and Val.
I have a new website that may be of interest to you.
It is not directly related to this topic.
Please see

http://doulting.shawwebspace.ca/

Regards
Richard

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329152527.htm

You might find this interesting- I've been saying that the atomic system may
have some language-like structure. Apparently hierarchical structure in genomes
varies the way that human hierarchies do to some extent- and as we know the
genetic code DOES have language-like properties. Does this imply anything for
the systems of non-biological molecules and the way they interact?

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

I've been working this past week on a new tetrahedral configuration, one that
takes Mendeleev's Line and folds it up in coherent and motivated pattern, rather
than some hodgepodge (which WILL work though, in a variety of ways, too).

In this model, the line is unbroken- all subperiods and periods meet their left
and right hand neighbors in the sequence sphere to sphere.

I had thought that the resulting model would be symmetrical, but in fact the
period duals end up nesting in strange ways. Very interesting to look at,
though. The system is infinitely extensible.

The folding is analogous to protein folding- Mendeleev's Line is like primary
structure, and then we fold the periods up like beta sheets, back and forth to
create antiparallelism within 'tiles', akin to secondary structure in the
protein. Finally, these tiles then fit together as well as sequence into each
other correctly to give the tetrahedron, so tertiary structure.

It would be amusing if the elements, so organized this way in real space, acted
as some sort of molecular machine (but then a good number balk at bonding, or
won't stick around long enough to bond).

In any case the folding pattern is novel enough- traditional kinships go out the
window, but I'll be looking to see if the kinships least geometrically motivated
in my angled ring model might work just fine in this one.

Jess Tauber

--- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, Larry T <orahct@...> wrote:
>
> How do you treat neutrons, as junk DNA?


Really good question, Valery!

When I've talked about the atomic system as having language-like properties,
I've referred mainly to its resemblance to a phonology in linguistics, just as
with the genetic code in biology.

Basic primitives come together in different combinations to create a set of
standard parts for the next level of hierarchy. The trick is to know what level
one is looking at.

From subatomic particles to atoms, then from atoms to molecules gives three
levels, so atoms have a phonological cast (where in languages phonological
so-called distinctive features combine to create phonemes, which then come
together to make syllables, roots, etc.).

Phonological features and phonemes are more abstract and the result of theory
and analysis, while syllables and roots are less so, versus entire word stems
and inflected forms, which are real to speakers. A linguist walking in on a new
language has to start working backwards from the higher combinational levels, as
does a baby learning a language.

Levels of structure interact- when phonemes come together in combination there
will often be adjustments (phonotactics, morphophonology, sandhi), where a core
set of features is preserved (reminiscent of Henry Bent's atomic cores!), but
other more labile features defer to those in neighboring forms, and sometimes
underlying phonemes may not show up at all on the surface in certain
combinations. At other times the phoneme may shine through unmodified.

Similar things seem to happen in chemical combinations.

In languages the phonological system is considered usually to be mostly separate
from the syntax and morphology on the one hand, and the semantics on the other.
This isn't a clean split, though, and in some cases they can be heavily
intertwined. In words called ideophones or expressives the phonology and
semantics are heavily co-dependent, so much so that one can associate discrete
meaning ranges to individual phonemes or even phonological distinctive features.
But these forms minimize their syntactic involvement. Syntax and morphology,
when married to semantics, often minimizes the phonological component. And so
on.

In biochemistry, we have DNA mostly for storage or reference, copied and
distributed or transcribed to a mobile medium for translation into protein or
foldable directly into various functional RNA's. The genetic code has a level of
distinctive features (nitrogen and oxygen bearing structures facing each other
in paired nucleotide bases). Three bases then create something like a phoneme,
from one perspective, or could be considered a different level of distinctive
feature. For the functional RNA's different folds have structural or functional
meanings directly, so could be thought of as syllables or roots within larger
words.

In translation to protein the basic level seems to be that of folds of various
types, alphas, betas, etc. which come together as domains and then higher
combinations. But there is also an intermediate level where substitutions of
amino acids 'tweaks' such structures and gives fine detail tuning to the local
electro-physical environment.

The genetic code has start and stop signals, as well as at times alternative
codings for rare amino acids (in certain organisms). The code is MOSTLY
universal, but not entirely. There is a core of mappings shared by all. The code
itself is geometrically structured, not randomly assorted, based on a number of
factors including the shape, size, charge, and/or solubility of the resulting
translated amino acid residue. There is symmetry.

The 'housekeeping' codons, dealing with stopping, starting translation, etc.,
appear to break this symmetry at one level. But the proteins seem not to be
missing anything.

Life processes utilize only a relatively small part of the periodic table- the
upper right half of the p-block after the semimetal diagonal (ignoring the
nobles), the first line of d-block metals, the upper half of the s-block
(ignoring He), and perhaps none of the f-block. Thus a declining dependence
block row-wise as one goes s>p>d>f. And life doesn't seem to miss the elements
it doesn't use (and may actually avoid them).

Except for the lightest forms, and radioactives, I don't know whether living
systems try to differentiate isotopes. Almost all the syntax-like functions of
life are in higher combinational levels (the genetic code and secondary marking
of nucleic acids being the lowest level 'chemical' effects per se).

On the other hand, for the atomic system, isotopes of course have a much higher
importance- without increasing proportions of neutrons nuclei would be unstable,
and even with them many are unstable anyway.

In biochemistry so-called 'junk' often has regulatory significance, but this is
even now only being discovered. The 'junk' helps to organize everything at the
higher hierarchical levels. From this perspective perhaps neutrons might be seen
as to some extent analogous, helping protons 'get along'. Nucleons and electrons
organize themselves hierarchically, with more particles we have deeper
structures. Doing what? Especially if one cannot distinguish individual
particles- or is this the wrong way to look at this when we can instead view
wave mechanics?

But there are organisms without any junk (bacteria and archaea, many viruses)-
and H without any neutrons. Weak analogy? Bacteria and viruses with large
genomes DO have 'junk', but is this the result of interactions with eukaryotes,
which depend on this kind of DNA (minimally 5% from what I read this week), or
did they develop such a system independently as a systematic necessity to help
them organize their genomes when gene numbers start to become unwieldy?

And while many higher atomic nuclei have distinctive shapes, H's proton seems to
be able to shift between a number of shapes. Lack of regulation? Bacteria and
viruses can mutate very rapidly, and also exchange genes laterally (just a week
or two ago it was announce that lateral gene shift had been discovered in fungi,
that is lower eukaryotes), to the point that 'species' doesn't mean so much with
them as it does with higher organisms.

Finally, if 'nanobes' exist they can't have the same elaborate machinery that
higher cells have, or even necessarily a genome as-we-know-it. But maybe they do
just fine without it (IF they exist). There is an entire world of high-energy
particle physics involving all sorts of weird combinations of subatomic
particles that we just never see in our peaceful, cold local universe outside
atom-smashers- perhaps an entire level of new language-like or social-like
organization we can only imagine (or maybe can't)! And there is a whole world of
animal communication of different types- vocal, visual, chemical, at macro and
micro scales. We could just be skimming the surface.

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

http://www.sciscoop.com/revising-the-periodic-table.html

Jess Tauber

http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=15675.php

Jess Tauber

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-04/exclusive-making-elements-one-ipad\
s-most-magical-apps
Be sure to watch the video. I especially like the stereo viewing
addition though I wish he allowed for cross-eyed stereo in addition to
wall-eyed.

I expect that you folks will mostly perk up hearing him bemoan the 2D
nature of the periodic table and will probably have some great
suggestions for his version 2.0.

-Melinda

Today I was sent a link to a new page by Radoslav Jovanovic
(http://jovanovic-marija.net/rasko/physics/magic.html).

One of the things I noticed after looking at the page was that one could, after
row 6 of the classical Pascal triangle, merely sum the numerical values of the
integer, triangular, and tetrahedral diagonals (on both sides of the triangle)
to get the magic numbers, rather than having to double.

Before row 6 there is difficulty because these diagonals either have not
appeared yet or fully separated. Reminds me a little of the old monster flick
'The Manster', where a second body grows into the first and then pulls apart
from it like taffy.

Comments welcome. Test Friday.

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

Hi,

Here on this group I was presented, with my site Universal Periodic Table , as rediscoverer of left step table.

At first I must say that when I start with my researches work, many years ago, I didn't know that such tables, as Janet's table, even exist.

                As follower of idea that in Nature, besides huge variety of many different things ,  Nature laws are based only on few basic postulates and that there are hidden symmetry and order (even in chaos), my interest was focus on so told little problems in Physic and Chemistry.

                Among them and problems in  the Periodic System of the Elements, as filling order problem,  s and p hybridization problem,  pairs arrangement of the rows and so on. This bother me a year or two,  when I get the idea and solve the problem. It was the new row (shell) quantum number n_s, besides  the main quantum number n which now correspond always for two rows. This approach solve most of the Periodic System problems. With this new quantum number all spectroscopic data must be recheck.  

                It past nine year from date when I put this idea(2001) , in my site Universal Periodic Table, on the Internet.

Because there was no positive feedback on this idea I tray to apply this new quantum number solution in some aromatic and some complex compounds. This approach gave expellant result.

So I attach the new aromatic and complex compound Pictures, in my site Universal Periodic Table, a few days ago.

In this site You can find also the new Benzene 1,5 band connection,  new electrophylic aromatic substitution mechanism, new Diborane bond connection, new DNA base Pictures, new aromaticity rules  and many other interesting things.

Aco Muradjan

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1171'

Warning- viewing this page may endanger your immortality...

Jess Tauber

Hi Valery,

I didn't redisover Left Step Periodic System. My table shape was only as result
of new quantum number ns.
Until 2001, when I present my proposal on Internet, for new quantum number ns ,
there is no Table among thousand in whole world with such solution, because
still today, spectroscopic data are written in spdf style not ss,pp,dd,,ff, …
This is my proposal in 20001. It cover pairs arrangement of the rows. Your table
not. In your ADOMAH Periodic Table with Copyrights  2006 or 2007, electron
configuration is maybe similar to  ss,pp,dd,ff   style, but with no foundation
how is get.

Regards
  Aco Muradjan,

 Very interesting. In the begining of your first message  you have stated that you rediscovered LSPT and in this message you  stated that you did not rediscover it. But somehow your PT happened to be the same thing as Janet's LSPT! Also, you stated that you have discovered new quantum number "ns" that is the same thing that "n", but "n" is not the same "n" anymore. Number of quantum numbers in any given quantum system is fixed and we do not get to choose how many of them to use. There is one quantum number of the system corresponding to the energy, i.e., the eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian. There is also one quantum number for each operator O that commutes with the Hamiltonian (i.e. satisfies the relation OH = HO). These are all the quantum numbers that the system needs. I recommend you to visit This web site to read more on it.

Quantum numbers n, l and ml are derived from the first principles  and have physical meaning, that is quantization of energy, magnitude of orbital momentum and quantization of orbital momentum. They all play role in Shrodinger Equation. Can you explain, please, on the first principles, what your new "n" quantum number means, since your "ns" is the old "n". Well, let me help. Janet called them dyads, back in 1920's.

Also, the diagrams on your web site are not new also. Does this look familiar to you?

The reason for diads is the fact that there are always odd number of values of the quantum number "ml" in each particular subshell. ADOMAH Tetrahedral stack of spheres clearly demontrates how this fact leads to the existance of Janet's dyads and consequently to the existance of triads.

Best,

Valery.

--- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "acomuradjan" <aco@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Valery,
>
> I didn't redisover Left Step Periodic System. My table shape was only as result of new quantum number ns.
> Until 2001, when I present my proposal on Internet, for new quantum number ns , there is no Table among thousand in whole world with such solution, because still today, spectroscopic data are written in spdf style not ss,pp,dd,,ff, … This is my proposal in 20001. It cover pairs arrangement of the rows. Your table not. In your ADOMAH Periodic Table with Copyrights 2006 or 2007, electron configuration is maybe similar to ss,pp,dd,ff style, but with no foundation how is get.
>
> Regards
> Aco Muradjan,
>

Hi Valery,

I didn't redisover Left Step Periodic System. My table shape was only as result of new quantum number ns.

Until 2001, when I present my proposal on Internet, for new quantum number ns , there is no Table among thousand in whole world with such solution, because still today, spectroscopic data are written in spdf style not ss,pp,dd,,ff, … This is my proposal in 20001. It cover pairs arrangement of the rows. Your table not. In your ADOMAH Periodic Table with Copyrights  2006 or 2007, electron configuration is maybe similar to  ss,pp,dd,ff   style, but with no foundation how is get.

Regards

 Aco Muradjan,

 Aco,

What are you talking is Janet's dyads, I think. ADOMAH Tetrahedral stack of spheres provides very elegant explanation why dyads exist, without any additional quantum numbers. If you are familiar with quantum mechanics, we do not get to choose how many quantum numbers exist. It is derived from the formula. Introduction of additional quantum number is nice, but it has to be justified and explained on basic principles. For example, quantum number "n" reflects energy of the electrons and quantum number "l" is magnitude of orbital angular momentum of the electrons, etc. What does your quantum number represent. Can you tell?

Best,

Valery. 

Hi Valery,

No, Valery it isn't Janet's dyads! What I am talking about is that you must make differences between energy shape table and electronic shape table. There are thousand tables with electronic shape table, but only one with energy shape table. Only in my table they are the same. Present energy shape table is right step table. Here is order:

K = s

L = s-p

M = s-p-d

N = s-p-d-f

O = s-p-d-f-g

2 = 2

8 = 2,6

18 = 2,6,10

32 = 2,6,8,10,14

….. and so on, or

1,2

3,4=5,6,7,8,9,10,

11,12,=13,14,15,16,17,18=19,20,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26

27,28=29,30,31,32,33,34=35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44=45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58

And so on

This is not good. Isn't it?

Because of this there are so told filling order problem.

But this is today's present valid form of speckotropic energy level notation.

In my Periodic System n is main number and each number is valid for two rows while the new ns quantum number for shell notation.

So in my Periodic System you will find this order:

K = s

L = s

M = p,s

N = p,s

O = d,p,s

P = d,p,s

Q = f,d,p,s

R = f,d,p,s

If you draw table with this quantum numbers you will get left side double row table

This order is same as energy level order. With this order there is no energy filling order problem.

In my site you will find nice energy level diagram with differences between this two systems.

Greetings,

Aco

Aco wrote:
"> K = s
> L = s
> M = p,s
> N = p,s
> O = d,p,s
> P = d,p,s
> Q = f,d,p,s
> R = f,d,p,s
If you draw table with this quantum numbers you will get left side
double row table. This order is same as energy level order. With this order
there is no energy filling order problem. In my site you will find nice energy
level diagram with differences
between this two systems."

Aco,
If you did not hear about Janet Table before, you did not know about his dyads
and it seems that you have not read Prof. Bent's Book "New Ideas in Chemistry".
Your table is not new table. Your table is Left Step Table discovered by Janet
in 1928. All you have come up with are new notations of the old parameters.
Your "new" quantum number "ns" is long known in chemistry as "n+l" and your
"new" quantum number "n" is Dyad number "D" in Bent's book, coresponding to
Janet's dyad. Call it K,L,M,O,P or A,B,C,D..., it does not make any difference.
No one will be changing spectroscopic tables because of your new notations.

In Adomah Periodic Table (vertical layout), cascades correspond to "n+l" levels
and column numbers correspond to primary quantum numbers n=1,2,3,4,5, that is to
energy levels and to electron shells. There is no need for K,L,M,N....