R. Vishnevsky. About
a mistake in the atomic
structure description. The Quantum mechanical
theory of the atomic structure has made a serious mistake describing the
order of electron shells filling. The question is in the energy level
alternation in a multielectron atom. The 4s level is considered, for
example, to be placed ahead of 3d energy levels.1 It does not correspond
to the reality and gives rise to a false interpretation of
physical-chemical properties of the elements of the Mendeleev Periodic
System from the point of view of quantum mechanics2. And though the properties of the
elements themselves dont change because of it the notion of the substance
structure is damaged sufficiently. The article is devoted
to this drawback removal. For clarifying the real order of the level
alternation in a multielectron atom the physical sense of ionization
energy should be defined more precisely. We know that its
necessary for the atom ionization to do some work to split out an
electron3. This energy is
numerically equal to ionization potential and is usually expressed in
electron volts. For example, this magnitude for the helium ion He+ is 54,4
eV. In the neutral helium atom its equal to 24,6 eV for any of two
electrons, i.e. the total energy necessary for a complete destruction of
the electron pair system of the helium atom is 79 eV. In other words the
total energy of the electron pair system T is
T=I1+I2 where I1 and I2 are
energies of single and double pair ionization respectively. It concerns
any pair of a multielectron atom. Here and further a pair means two
electrons in the same orbit. If we consider two
paired electrons as a unified system we may assume that the energy of the
latter T comes out of two identical magnitudes of pair level energy
TL and bond energy
between them TB : T=TB+2TL. During the
process of single ionization of the pair only the energy of the pair bond
is compensated, i.e. TB=I1. The electrons break
loose from each other, when it happens the level energy of one of the
electrons is imparted to the retained one. Its possible to explain the
following way. As the electrons of the pair rotate around the nucleus of
the atom in the opposite
directions, during the process of single ionization one of the electrons
is retarded by the ionizing field and the other is accelerated to the same
degree. The same process takes place under impact ionization; the electron
retained by the nucleus becomes the carrier of the total pair level
energy. At the moment of
double ionization the doubled energy of the pair level is compensated.
I2=2TL. The given reasoning
can be spread on any electron pair of a multielectron atom including the
atom with the only electron in the outer shell. In this case the only
electron may be considered as a singly ionized pair. The single ionization
potential of such an atom is a magnitude equal to the energy of electron
affinity and the energy itself is the single ionization energy of the
given atom. For example, the first and the second potentials of ionization
for the hydrogen atom are equal to
I1= 0,747 V and I2= 13,605 V
respectively. On the basis of the
discussed above one can come to the conclusion that the values of ionizing
potentials for any atom characterize the alternating values of the bond
energy TB and doubled level energy 2TL of the
corresponding electron pair. Generally, the doubled
level energy of n-pair for atoms with even atomic members is numerically
equal to 2n-multiple ionization potential. For atoms with uneven atomic
numbers the doubled energy of n-level is numerically equal to (2n-1) multiple
ionization potential. According to the
ionization potentials given in reference books4 the graph of the dependence of the
pair level energy on the atomic number of an element is made. For the sake
of it the atomic numbers of the elements are consistently laid off as
abscissa and the magnitudes of the double level energy of the
corresponding atom are laid off as ordinate. The points connected
in the graph referring to the first level from the nucleus form the
dependence curve of the first pair level energy on element numbers. The curve begin
from 13,6 eV point for the hydrogen atom and goes far beyond the graph
reaching the value of 1,15 . 105 eV in the region of
element 92. The curve following the first one shows the change in the
second pair level from the nucleus and so on. It results in making a
family of curves given in Fig. 1.
It should be
noted that the movement of curves expressing total pair energy dependence
T on the number of curves in Fig.1.
The difference lies only in their inclination. In spite of the fact that
the graph on the whole shows only the outer, with respect to the nucleus,
cut of energy levels (to 200 eV), its enough for the majority of atoms to
define the total number of levels and the order of their arrangement for
any atom including uranium. To do it a straight line should be made from
the point with the atomic number of an element so as it could cross all
the curves laying to the left from the point. As it is done, for example,
for the element with atomic number l8 in Fig.1.The
straight line crosses 9 curves laid in groups : 1-4-4 looking from the
left to the right. This cut gives a qualitative conception of the
arrangement of the energy levels of the argon atom. In quantum mechanics
this level order of the argon atom is compared to the following
alternation of quantum levels: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p. Analyzing the graph
its easy to identify every curve beginning from 1s and coming up to 6d.
For convenience, the periods of the system of elements and the number of
elements in every period are given in the graph. To distinguish individual
curves in the group they are labeled with numbers. So the three curves
corresponding to the 2p shell are marked consistently : 2p1,
2p2, 2p3 and so on. The results of analyzing the energy levels dependence of
the family of curves on the atomic number of the element allow us to come
to the following conclusions: 1. The
actual order of the level energy arrangement in an unagitated
multielectron atom refutes the quantum mechanics statement about the
alternation order expressed in the inequality
1s<2s<2p<3s<3p<4s<3d<4p<5s<4d<5p<6s<4f
The
given fallibility of the inequality is easily established if we refer to the
graph of the pair level curves, for example, the 4s1 level of the copper
atom is-7,7 eV and the nearest 3d5 pair level of the same atom
is-38,5eV,
i.e. 4s>3d. The same can be said about 4d and 5s
levels. One more example.
According to the graph the scandium atom has no 4s level but quantum
mechanics claims that its electron structure is expressed by the formula5 1s2 2s2
2p6 3s2 3p6 3d1
4s2. 2.
The energy of the electron pair levels in one and the same shell increases
in absolute magnitude the nearer the level is to the nucleus. This fact
contradicts the statement of quantum mechanics according to which all the
electrons of one shell have equal energy levels (so-called equivalent
electrons). 3.
Quantum mechanics assumes the existence of free energy levels in an
unagitated atom. It is considered, for example, that the atoms of K and Ca
have a free shell 3d and the next shell 4s is occupied by electrons. In
reality no atom in the periodic system of elements has free inner
levels. 4.
The electron structure of most chemical elements from the point of view of
quantum mechanics is interpreted incorrectly. The
pointed out drawbacks allow
us to doubt the alternation order of d and f shells as well. There
are no data for building up
curves in the region of points 55-68 of the graph in Fig.1
among ionization potentials data of chemical elements given in reference
literature. According to the data we have only portions of the curves (continuous lines) are
represented on the graph. However, the generality of the family of curves
allows to assume that the lacking curves follow in the way shown in
Fig.1
by dotted lines. In other words the group of the curves 5p is followed by
5 curves of the shell 5d and the last two dotted curves adjoin five
following curves (the region of points 69-79 of the graph) forming the
group of seven curves of the
shell f, the latter having the same inclination as the curves of groups 5s,5p, 5d.That is why they
are marked as group 5f. The
family of curves in Fig.1
indicates in the whole the structure of the force field, the source of
which being in the nucleus. The field in question is assumed to a
gravirotational field (GR) described in the authors other papers6. In
this case we speak about a spiral-planetary model of an atom representing
a gravirotational system that can be characterized in a following
way:
One
or several force lines of the nucleus field exists in an atom;
When
the atom is unagitated an electron is only in the force lines and rotates
together with the field;
The
movement of an electron from one orbit to another takes place only in a
spiral trajectory undergoing a tangent acceleration. In
a form a GR-model of an atom resembles a double convex disc like an
unknown flying object, the orbits of uneven electrons being situated on
one of its surfaces and the orbits of even electrons - on the other. Two
electrons making a pair (e.g. 1s1
and 1s2) have the same in radius but different in space orbits:
one being moved by the right R-field; the other - by the left situated on
the different sides of the nucleus. So the first electron has a left spin
and the second has a right spin accordingly. Twin electrons are always in
a counterphase. To
the periphery orbits of the
electron pairs are getting closer in space but do not coincide. There
cannot be two electrons on one and the same orbit! Force
lines of a rotational field of the nucleus are spiral curves along
which electrons are grouped.
The lines are continuous, that is why only portions of the same force
lines of the R-field are found in every period of curves according to
Fig.1.
For example, in Fig.1
the curves 2p1, 3p1, 4p1 and so on are the exhibition of
one and the same force line p1 of a rotational field of the
nucleus. The field itself is aslant-symmetric and rotates pairs of
electrons with opposite spins. That is why the spiral p1 is
common for the groups of the electrons with the indices p1
and
p2 of the atom in
question.
Fig.2
shows several periods of the diverging spiral marked consistently with the
symbols of quantum mechanics 1s, 2s, 3s, ... and they conventionally
reflect (the spiral is not logarithmic) the form of the force field. At
the beginning of the second period the change takes place and the field is segregated. The
group of three spirals 2p appear from the outside of the spiral 2s due to
the reason existing in the nucleus. This group goes together with the
spiral s further and at the beginning of the third period they are
adjoined from the outside by the group of 5 spirals 3d. Now three groups
of spirals continue diverging
and at the end of the fifth period they are adjoined from the
outside by the next group of 7 spirals 5f and so on.
If one connects every period of a spiral group with the
corresponding electron shell of an atom, it is possible to establish the
following order of shell alternation in a multielectron atom: 1s, 2s,
2p,3s, 3p, 3d, 4s, 4p, 4d, 5s, 5p, 5d, 5f, 6s, 6p,..., this order differs
greatly from that admitted by quantum mechanics but it matches well the
experimental data of the
electron pairs in Fig.1.
The Mendeleev Periodic System of elements has played an extremely
important role in the development of scientific outlook at the substance
structure. Nowadays, a century later, the drawbacks of the table of this
system become clearly seen.
At first, it doesnt include lanthanide and actinide families
and
the additional table was created for them. Another drawback is a
square -nest form, preventing the variety of chemical elements from
being reflected more completely.
It would be more natural for the table of elements to be expressed
in the form of the electron shell of an atom which planer variant is given
in Fig. 3.
Here the Periodic System of Elements is shown in the form of a diverging
spiral. It naturally includes elements of the groups, that are not
inscribed in the known table. The system for consideration contains
periods, corresponding to the layers of a electron shell of an atom. So
the first period includes 1s shell, the second - 2s and 2p, the third
period includes shells 3s, 3p and 3d. That is why there is no
coincidence between the
periods of the given table and Mendeleevs system. Only
the uneven half of the system from the first element to 115 is shown in
Fig.3.
The even half of the system is made by increasing the number of every atom
in a unit. Group indices increase accordingly. So element 114 of the group
p2 appears in the
even table instead of element 113 of the group p1 and so
on. Elements of the system are
displayed in the order of increasing their atomic numbers in a diverging
spiral in the way the elements of a corresponding layer are placed in
every period of the latter. The elements themselves are grouped in spiral
sleeves curved opposite to the main spiral. This is a result of a change in steepness of force
lines of a rotational field as it is getting away from the nucleus of an
atom: it is seen in Fig.1 that the inclination
of curves groups decrease with every other period .At the same time Fig.3 reflects only qualitatively the angular
position of element groups in the table. The
suggested system of chemical elements is useful as it gives some
conception of a planetary system of any atom. The whole spiral in
Fig.3
reflects the structure of the electron system of an atom of chemical
element 115. Like elements of the table are grouped in galaxy sleeves
the electrons are regulated by the force GR-field of the atom nucleus. The
radii of stationary electron orbits correspond to the distance between the
elements and the spiral centre. It
should be noted that the force field structure of an atom depends on its
nucleus charge. For example, a lanthanum atom has no force lines of the
group f that results in a looser placement of the force lines left in a
period limits. Table 1
gives period numbers, shell indices, the quantity of elements (electrons
in the shell), atomic numbers of the elements and the order of filling the
levels of the presumed system of chemical elements. The latter embraces
114 already discovered elements and can be enriched.
Translated
by Olga Afanasjeva. Sochi,
2001.
