The procedure you provide is sensible: Calculate ionization energies by building up multi-electron configurations one electron at a time with the allowance Mod 1 makes for differing radii for electrons occupying the "same shell" (unlike SQM and GUTCP without Mod 1).
May I presume the postulate (temporarily for convenience) Spin = Z%2 -1/2 ? (where Z is the electron associated with the outermost electron of Z-like atoms and % is the division's remainder operator)?
PS: Since the sign of spin is relative, I presume also that it would be equally sensible to postulate Spin = -Z%2 -1/2 for convenience, again pending more principled calculation.
Has anyone in the prestige physics community found the close match with experimental ionization values by these classically-derived formulas remarkable? The close match with experimental values by formulae derived from classical physics can't have gone entirely unnoticed by the entire SQM community. They already accept, as reasonable computational approximations, the single electron Bohr model calculation of ionization energies. At the very least, these formulas could be tacked on to the Bohr model with no less legitimacy, if for no other reason than that they provide approximations of relatively impractical QED calculations.
A laudable effort by the author to continue his analysis of the work by Randell Mills as well as documenting parts of his personal journey. It is good to see scientists cover GUTCP, which is a remarkable theory.
Nevertheless, scientific method requires us to remain critical. Apart from the inverted column headers in table 5.4 (between experimental and calculated values), one must question why the table doesn't show all Fe ionization energies, instead of only a subset.
The reason appears to be, unfortunately, that no one besides Dr. Mills has been able to (re)derive the formulas for the energy levels of successive electrons. Mills stops at electron 20, which corresponds to Ca-like ions such as Fe6+. GUTCP does allow one to readily complete the table for Fe8+, Fe7+ and Fe6+ (with 235.87, 148.56 and 123.96 respectively), but no information is available about how to calculate the ionization energies of Fe5+, Fe4+,Fe3+, Fe2+, Fe+ or Fe. In turn, this is because the "postulated magnetic forces" are not well explained. Indeed, one might interpret them as variable parameters to the model, which seriously undermines the sweeping conclusions drawn in this work.
Chapter 1 of this series stated that GUTCP "is shown in this monograph to predict with remarkable precision (...) the ionization energies for the first *twenty-five* atoms in the Periodic Table and all ions derived therefrom."
Atoms 21-25 are Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn : perhaps those calculations are still to come ?
The procedure you provide is sensible: Calculate ionization energies by building up multi-electron configurations one electron at a time with the allowance Mod 1 makes for differing radii for electrons occupying the "same shell" (unlike SQM and GUTCP without Mod 1).
May I presume the postulate (temporarily for convenience) Spin = Z%2 -1/2 ? (where Z is the electron associated with the outermost electron of Z-like atoms and % is the division's remainder operator)?
PS: Since the sign of spin is relative, I presume also that it would be equally sensible to postulate Spin = -Z%2 -1/2 for convenience, again pending more principled calculation.
Has anyone in the prestige physics community found the close match with experimental ionization values by these classically-derived formulas remarkable? The close match with experimental values by formulae derived from classical physics can't have gone entirely unnoticed by the entire SQM community. They already accept, as reasonable computational approximations, the single electron Bohr model calculation of ionization energies. At the very least, these formulas could be tacked on to the Bohr model with no less legitimacy, if for no other reason than that they provide approximations of relatively impractical QED calculations.
I agree with your comment. I only hope that Dr Mills see it and responds with an explanation.
A laudable effort by the author to continue his analysis of the work by Randell Mills as well as documenting parts of his personal journey. It is good to see scientists cover GUTCP, which is a remarkable theory.
Nevertheless, scientific method requires us to remain critical. Apart from the inverted column headers in table 5.4 (between experimental and calculated values), one must question why the table doesn't show all Fe ionization energies, instead of only a subset.
The reason appears to be, unfortunately, that no one besides Dr. Mills has been able to (re)derive the formulas for the energy levels of successive electrons. Mills stops at electron 20, which corresponds to Ca-like ions such as Fe6+. GUTCP does allow one to readily complete the table for Fe8+, Fe7+ and Fe6+ (with 235.87, 148.56 and 123.96 respectively), but no information is available about how to calculate the ionization energies of Fe5+, Fe4+,Fe3+, Fe2+, Fe+ or Fe. In turn, this is because the "postulated magnetic forces" are not well explained. Indeed, one might interpret them as variable parameters to the model, which seriously undermines the sweeping conclusions drawn in this work.
Chapter 1 of this series stated that GUTCP "is shown in this monograph to predict with remarkable precision (...) the ionization energies for the first *twenty-five* atoms in the Periodic Table and all ions derived therefrom."
Atoms 21-25 are Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn : perhaps those calculations are still to come ?