The chemical elements may be represented as cells within a “periodic table”. The Janet Periodic Table (first printed 1928) is also known as the Left Step Table. This table may be re-organized as four square matrices. Each matrix is a different size. Square matrices have an important role in the calculations of physics. Each element is associated with a cell which has a “location” within the matrices. “Location numbers” are used to identify the appropriate matrix for any element and to define the “location” of any element within that matrix. The location numbers are; Matrix number (1,2,3,4) Ring number (0,1,2,3) corresponding to orbital (s,p,d,f) A matrix may be considered to be a “core” surrounded by concentric square “rings” Divergence number (divergence from a major diagonal)(-1,-2,-3)0(+1,+2,+3) A cell lies on a diagonal if divergence is zero. Latitude number (upper half matrix , lower half matrix)(½ , -½) Longitude number (left half matrix , right half matrix)(-½ , +½) The location numbers may also be associated with the quantum numbers of “the most significant electron”. If the cells of each matrix are represented as a cube (not as a square) then the matrices may be stacked to form a “stepped pyramid” with four “levels”. Each level is a matrix of cubes. If each cubic cell represents a chemical element then the stepped pyramid will become a “3D Table of Elements”. It is also possible to view vertical sections cut through the pyramid to reveal “vertical relationships” of the elements. Is the atomic number related to the quantum numbers of the most significant electron? Reference; http://newstuff77.weebly.com 01 The Pyramid Periodic Table

Wrong. 1) They are not square. 2) Nowadays, you need five: https://jeries.rihani.com/symmetry/index6c.html That last sentence is quite an empty statement: non-square matrices also have an important role in the calculations of physics. So do non-matrix mathematical objects. What "ring"? Ah, that kind of ring. Well, obviously you are wrong, as the matrices aren't squares, so this doesn't work. Lots of claims, no evidence or even a suggestion what insights might be gained from this particular arrangement. No, it's related to the number of protons in the nucleus. There are relations to the orbitals of the electrons, but I don't see how it affects the quantum numbers of the most significant electron, and apparently neither do you, or you would have given such a relation instead of the baseless speculation that there might be a relation. Oh yeah, you're the drive-by spammer.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!