To begin to clean up the stuff above, it's useful to look at the related matter, namely,Originally Posted by Garnabby
Electrons have their quark-structure hidden inside, but, protons, and neutrons, have theirs up front. So, to have the shells of the protons, and neutrons, in terms of the shells of the electrons, the outward structure of the quarks comes into play. I mean, electrons are like protons, and neutrons, in the sense that they, too, have a quark-structure, but, the latter are like the former, otherwise, when not looking per se at quarks. Simplistically speaking, neutrons come apart to give electron, proton, and anti-neutrino, but, they're not thus written when together to form the neutrons, when the neutrons are written in terms of outward, visible quarks. How neutrons typically are, in terms of outward quarks, but, less typically, apart, in terms of hidden, inward quarks.
So, because the quarks, and their shells/orbitals, are involved with the protons, and neutrons, but, not per se with the electrons, the approach of keeping the corresponding digits at the ends of rows of the periodic table, around the central point, has to be modified to include also the digits at the start of the rows. Because those numbers are written in reverse for the quark tables, with the first digit in each thus number being the same as its counterpart, which is in a different row of that table.
For the protons, the known sequence, insofar as it goes, 2, 8, 20, 28, [50], 82, 114 has the 50 as its central point, which is close to the number, [54], of the "magic" or inert numbers for the electrons shells, which in the sense noted above, might as well pertain to the protons, too, of which an atom usually has as many protons, as electrons. Aside from joining up with neutrons (by the strong force), in the nucleus of an atom, protons are just like electrons, except for the usual ones being about 1,836 times larger, in terms of mass. Another very interesting numeral that still remains completely unexplained by the best models.
So, if we work around the [50], first, there's the 28 with 82. Notice, as predicted by my existing model, above, that it's no longer about matching the digits on the end, but, a combination of that plus matching the digits to start. Here, 82 ---> 28, but, there's a bit more to it to get the other thus numerals to match up across the [50].
114 ---> 411 with the two ones together to form (1 + 1) = 2, which takes up one spot, and, so, with the 4 in the second spot from the right, which means that it represents 40. Together, 411 denotes (40 / 2) = 20, which is its corresponding numeral in the row across the [50].
126 ---> 621 with the two, and one, together to form (2 + 1) = 3, which takes up one spot, and, so, with the 6 in the second spot from the right, which means that it represents 60. Together, 621 denotes (60 / 3) = 20, which is its corresponding numeral in the row across the [50]. There tend to be more neutrons than protons, in the nucleus, and, so, they won't follow the thus pattern of the protons. The clue here is that 184 = (200 - 16) ---> 216 ---> 126 = 6*21 .
In other words, the 184 represents an inserted group of neutrons. Symmetrically speaking, there are two thus groups with the neutrons. For now I will write out merely the remaining numerals, which are fairly definitive. I won't know conclusively until I write out the ones for the other thus periodic table. It takes that other set of numerals to conclusively determine all of each of the sets of.
Proton: 0, 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 114, 144, 192, and 235.
Neutron: 0, 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, {126, 184}, 234, {282, 318}, and 371 .
Internally, the main patterns are similar to the straight-up electron/quark table-numbers, but, with a slight, but obvious, twist for the neutrons.
Oh, the [50] turns on itself, as 050 ---> 050, with the 5 remaining the second spot from the right, but, without an applicable sum to divide by. Something like this.
Incidentally, I got around to determining a few of the easier quark numbers. The central ones seems to be 2442, and 10392. The 2442 couldn't be a better fit, in the overall thus scheme of numbers, in terms of the mathematic forms of, but, the 10392 seems less obvious. Regardless, I have to let the numerals percolate a bit, to get to the hearts of them. Ha. Certainly, no rush. Hopefully, one the latter shells, in each thus table, will afford a mid-point at which those orbitals may fully invert.
Garnabby Garnabby is online now
Gold
Garnabby's AvatarJoin Date
Aug 2020
Posts
957 -------------> 957 = 33*29; 957---> 759 = 33*23
Reply With Quote