Date: May 9, 2013 12:49 AM Author: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Subject: Chapt15.62 Deriving Hund's rule from Maxwell Equations #1355 New<br> Physics #1558 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed On May 8, 2:52 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 7, 9:55 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Now one of my favorite chemistry textbooks was CHEM ONE by Waser,

> > Trueblood, Knobler 1980 where it shows an iceberg on the front cover.

> > On page 307 it shows a DeBroglie waves for permitted and prohibited

> > orbits.

>

> > Now I want to use that picture to start the mind of logic to thinking.

> > Now suppose we all accepted Old Physics that would have the electrons

> > not in a electron ecliptic, but rather have the electrons at all sorts

> > of angles in 3rd dimension. In my last post I proved how random angles

> > outside the ecliptic plane would violate the Minimum Principle that

> > Feynman was so adamant about.

>

> > So what I am doing here is pointing out the geometry that electrons

> > must be in an ecliptic plane to minimize energy of orbiting the

> > nucleus, and that should a photon come along and excite and electron

> > to move to a higher orbit or should an electron emit a photon and move

> > into a lower state orbit, that the electron will travel the minimum

> > path. The electron cannot travel a minimum path if the electrons were

> > orbiting at random angles, because successive orbits in a planar

> > ecliptic have a minimum constant distance of separation.

>

> > Now this is likely to lead to an experiment of electrons moving from

> > one orbit to another orbit that we should be able to tell if two

> > successive orbits have a constant separation distance. If the orbits

> > were random angles, then the separation distance is a variable. Now I

> > do not know if we have a precision enough experiment to tell us if the

> > separation distance of two successive orbits is a constant or a

> > variable. However, there maybe already some phenomenon of physics,

> > such as say polarization or photoelectric effect or that diamonds

> > sparkle, that already is dependent on the fact that the separation

> > distance is always a constant for two successive orbits.

>

> Now Waser, Trueblood and Knobler simply call the DeBroglie wave on

> page 307 as a "matter wave". But I suspect that no-one ever in their

> chemistry classroom raised the question of why is this transverse

> matter wave so very much different from the transverse EM wave of Old

> Physics of their single transverse wave? Now of course, no student or

> teacher of physics or chemistry knew of a Double Transverse Wave for

> it was discovered by me in 2012 and is totally new to physics and

> chemistry.

>

> But this raises the question of why and how would physics and

> chemistry have three different types of transverse waves:

>

> 1) Matter wave of DeBroglie

> 2) Single transverse wave of Old Physics

> 3) Double Transverse wave

>

> Single transverse wave is depicted as such:

>

> E

> B

>

> Double Transverse wave is depicted as such:

>

> E-

> M+ M-

> E+

>

> Matter wave is depicted as thus:

>

> E-

>

> Now how can I unify or bring together these three different transverse

> waves?

>

> Well, we need the Double Transverse Wave for the photon in order to

> maintain same speed of light regardless of frequency or wavelength and

> this is brought about by destructive-interference.

>

> So that leaves me with explaining how to unify Matter Waves with

> Single Transverse Waves.

>

> Before I do that, let me bring into the picture the fact that

> electrons in suborbitals pair up with a up and down electron following

> Hund's Rule (page 328 of CHEM ONE).

>

> Now in astronomy do we have a Hund's Rule? Do we have ever, two

> planets in the same orbit around the Sun? Perhaps at one time the

> Asteroid Belt was a application of Hund's rule in which the two

> planets eventually collided and now form the rubble. And perhaps in

> the exoplanets that astronomers discover almost weekly, that several

> of them have evidence of two planets in the same orbit, only that the

> astronomers are thinking just one planet is going around at twice the

> speed.

>

> So, how can I unify the Matter Wave with Single Transverse Wave?

>

> Well, let me bring in another key feature. In that the electron in an

> atom orbit is **perpetual motion** and that is the same as the photon

> with no rest-mass. Yet we all know the electron has 0.5 MeV rest-mass

> and worse yet the proton with perpetual motion has

> 938 MeV.

>

> Well, I think I can rectify all of this by saying the photon

> definitely has the Double Transverse Wave

> while the Matter Wave and the Single Transverse Wave when combined is

> a Double Transverse Wave.

> Where we have this formula:

>

> Double Transverse Wave = Matter Wave unioned with Single Transverse

> Wave

>

> Now I need a third item, as the idea that waves are of two types--

> transverse or longitudinal. So that a Matter Wave is transverse but a

> Single Transverse Wave is actually a transverse wave inside, but

> outside is a longitudinal wave covering.

>

> So picture the DeBroglie Matter Wave on page 307 and picture a

> longitudinal wave of magnetic monopoles covering the transverse matter

> wave.

>

> In this manner we have a E- matter wave of the electron orbiting a

> nucleus and its orbit involves space being magnetic monopoles of M- or

> M+ as a medium in which the E- orbits.

>

> So we have the Electron as a skewed or partial double transverse wave

> of this:

>

> E-

> M- M+

>

> And that partial double transverse wave allows for destructive-

> interference so that the speed is a constant speed of perpetual

> motion.

>

> So now, we have another question, how does the second electron in a

> suborbital fit with the first electron of Hund's Rule? In astronomy we

> would think that the two planets in identical orbits would be spaced

> about 1/2 way apart, so that one planet would be in summer while the

> other in winter in their orbital path.

>

> For electrons, it would be different in that the entire first electron

> is a matter wave and the entire second electron would be a

> longitudinal wave of magnetic monopoles. This is perhaps the reason

> for Hund's rule is the small energy needed to convert a matter wave

> into a longitudinal wave that the second electron must convert to.

>

> So the first electron is

>

> E- single transverse wave

>

> and the second electron is also that, but upon conversion is

>

> M- M+ longitudinal wave

>

> and as the two obey Hund's rule of shared up and down electrons they

> end up as

>

> E-

> M- M+ where they are a mix of transverse moving in longitudinal wave.

>

> Sounds terribly complicated, but it satisfies those three constraints

> listed-- unify, perpetual motion, Hund's rule.

>

Well let us see if we can just derive Hund's Rule from the Maxwell

Equations. From CHEM ONE textbook Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980 page

328 they cite the rule as this:

--- quoting ---

Hund's rule: the order of filling degenerate orbitals in an atom (or

molecule) is such that as many electrons remain unpaired as possible.

--- end quote ---

Now which Maxwell Equation would such a rule likely emanate forth? I

suspect the Ampere law that says to the effect that parallel currents

attract and antiparallel currents repel. Now I need the Minimum

Principle of Feynman which would involve the Coulomb law. And the idea

being that, filling unpaired is the least energy (shortest path taken)

and filling occupied orbitals is less energy than going to the next

subshell. So I need the Minimum Principle as Coulomb law and the

Ampere law.

So let me analogize to planets taking Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus as

examples for a metaphorical Hund's rule.

We place a planet in each orbit, and now we have a new planet to fit.

It would take more energy to place it after Uranus orbit, so instead

we place it as a moon around Jupiter. Then we have a new planet to

place and here again, it takes less energy to place it as a moon of

Saturn than to place it as a independent planet after Uranus. Now I do

not know if that is the justification of moons of planets as some sort

of astronomy Hund's rule, but if EM forces control all of physics, we

would be wise to consider if planetary satellites is a form of Hund's

rule.

Now earlier today I wrote that the electron could be either having a

transverse wave form or a longitudinal wave form such as the

transverse matter wave of E-

and the longitudinal wave form of M- M+ where M stands for magnetic

monopole.

So now if we had a transverse wave electron of

E-

M+ M-

alone in a p orbital and then introduced a longitudinal wave electron

M+ M-

E-

then the two combined to form a complete p orbital with one up

electron and one down electron would look like this:

E-

2M+ 2M-

E-

Now where does the Ampere law enter this picture?

It enters when the electrons are single in a orbital for all of them

are lined up as "up electrons" and thus attractive and lower energy.

Attraction is lower energy than is repelling state.

But when the electrons have a choice of going to the next higher

subshell, that energy is greater than the energy of electrons coupled

in the same orbital, and the coupling is the magnetic monopoles

attracting. The magnetic monopole attraction is greater than the

electron to electron repelling.

In our planet analogy, the attraction of the planet as a moon to

Jupiter is less energy than the placement of the planet in a higher

orbit beyond Jupiter.

What I am trying to finagle is the transverse matter wave of one

electron and the longitudinal wave of the second electron to make that

up and down coupling of electrons to be less energy than going to the

next higher subshell.

--

Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google

newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I

call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now

is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,

sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,

sci.physics.electromag to?be hosted by a University the same as what

Drexel?University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to

be in education?not in the hands of corporations chasing after the

next dollar bill.?Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake

names, and only 5 posts per day, of all posters which reduces or

eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front-

page-hogging. Drexel has?done a excellent, simple and fair author-

archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012?as seen?here:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

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