Love & blessings to you,

Kimberley ♥ ]]>

Yes, there is another sub-shell. The whole setup is described pretty well at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_shell.

G

]]>As an explanation of the electron shells/platonic solids coincidence, I’m wondering afresh if it could work with/throw light on your idea of spherical harmonics.

I’d never realised that the cumulative total follows square law – v gd. Are there more electron shells outside the ‘f’, or is that it?

]]>I liken these energy flows to the ink from pens that are ‘drawing’ our physical reality – in myriad colours (frequencies) and in three dimensions. In fact, vapour trails from aircraft are a more apt metaphor in some ways, as the shape of reality is inherently dynamic, constantly moving on. [More on this at http://www.transfinitemind.com ].

This of course immediately raises the question “Who/what (if anyone/anything) is wielding those pens?” As you say, this is a metaphysical rather than a physical question, and is therefore a bit beyond the scope of this blog at our present level of understanding – I share the view held by many scientists that such as-yet unknown aspects of our reality are a proper area of study for science (sciens = ‘knowing’ in Latin). Experiments have shown that our consciousness influences the outcome of quantum events – Nobel laureate Wolfgang Pauli was himself quite certain of his own influence on scientific experiments, the well-documented ‘Pauli Effect’.

We still have a long way to go in our understanding of such matters – but the evidence is accumulating.

Grahame

]]>Enjoyed your piece. I quoted a bit of it on our energyawareness forum (and linked back to you here!) where it generated some debate. Putting the awareness of the essentially non-dual, shifting nature of ourselves and our world into practice in our everyday lives and relationships is for me the real challenge in all of this.

How do I live effectively from a position of knowing that what I see is not necessarily how things are, or how a certain person is. How does the world look, if I deepen, or open my awareness to other ‘frequencies’ than those where the energies combine and coalesce into the ’solid and durable objects’ we’re so used to calling reality.

It’s good to know that the line between physics and metaphysics is getting ever more blurred.

Lynda Kane

My feeling is that both of these sequences are manifestations of a deeper pattern – the pattern of square numbers, also an arithmetic progression.

The numbers you’ve given are the numbers in each sub-shell, which correspond to the different possible spherical harmonics in each shell as we move out from the nucleus – the larger the shell, the more harmonics that are possible. If we tot up the totals for successive shells we get: 2, 2+6=8, 8+10=18, 18+14=32. This is of course double the sequence of square numbers: 1, 4, 9, 16 etc – double because each orbit can have one spin-up and one spin-down electron.

Given that the surface area of a sphere increases as the square of the radius (radius twice as much gives area 4 times as much etc) it’s not totally surprising that number of possible spherical orbits increases in a square pattern also. That square pattern also gives a steady increase in the difference between number of electrons in each shell – differences between successive square numbers increase by 2 each time. This is shown by the regular difference of 4 between your series of numbers.

This doesn’t explain the platonic solid connection – but of course the links between music and geometry have been long known, and electron orbitals are unquestionably ‘the music of the spheres’ in microcosm (see link to singing bowls). Also surfaces of solids are a 2-dimensional thing, so a 2-dimensional pattern of increase – i.e. square numbers – fits (though I’m not offering that as a full explanation by any means).

Grahame

]]>How wd you account for the fact that

the number of electrons that each of the concentric atomic orbit ’shells’ can contain – 14 for the outer ‘f’ shell, 10 for the ‘d’ shell, 6 for the ’s’ shell and 2 for the inner ’s’ shell -

correspond to the number of opposed faces of the series of platonic solid shapes – 14 for the icosahedron, 10 for the dodecahedron, 6 for the cube, and 2 for the line, if you can call that a solid.

Interesting that the tetrahedron is left out, as it has no opposed faces, and so are the square and the triangle; the line is included; but the point is not.