Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Joel: on 10/4/12 at 19:55pm UTC, wrote Thank you, Armin, for your critique. The essay was written starting just...

Joel: on 10/4/12 at 18:42pm UTC, wrote Thank you for your observation about the ratings. The "community votes" are...

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi: on 10/4/12 at 8:27am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Williams, I read your essay with interest, although it has been a...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:09am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 14:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

Joel Williams: on 9/14/12 at 17:24pm UTC, wrote Jayakar Johnson Joseph, Thank you for looking at my submission. I...

Jayakar Joseph: on 9/14/12 at 4:30am UTC, wrote Dear Joel Williams, As per Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of...

James Dwyer: on 9/8/12 at 10:00am UTC, wrote Joel, I see now - thanks for explaining! Best wishes, Jim

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

John Cox: "Lorraine, That clarifies, thanks. I'd be in the camp that argues for a..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Steve Dufourny: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT ARTICLES

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM
January 21, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Century-Old spdf/nlms Quantum Model Is Incorrect by Joel M Williams [refresh]

Author Joel M Williams wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 11:13 GMT
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.

James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 13:19 GMT
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,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Joel replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 22:36 GMT
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:

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

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 23:25 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate

Author Joel M Williams replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 23:45 GMT
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

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 04:30 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate

Author Joel M Williams replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 17:24 GMT
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

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:28 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regard !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:09 GMT
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
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
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

report post as inappropriate

Joel replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:42 GMT
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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:27 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate

Joel replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 19:55 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate