This manuscript proposes a new atomic model addressing electron-shell and proton-depth symmetries, suggesting new predictions for atomic structures.
This record contains the stand-alone manuscript package for The ElementWave Electron-Shell/Proton-Depth Symmetric Atomic Model. The manuscript presents the ElementWave atomic model as a JS–SH/CRGE matter-branch construction. The primitive object is one closed mirror-depth element wave, not a detached nucleus with an externally appended electron cloud. In this object, the outward convex branch is read as the electron-shell endpoint ledger, the inward concave branch is read as the proton-depth endpoint ledger, and the neutral/neutron channel is the closure burden between the two curvature branches. The model fixes its origin grammar before numerical comparison. A 12-shell close-packed JS spherical-shell coordination supplies the outward shell-seat board, while the eight-depth board C = (2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8, 2) supplies the paired inward proton-depth address space. The contact sequence 2 + 8 → 3 + 7 → 4 + 6 → 5 + 5 is treated as a finite counter-rotating shell-contact ledger rather than a post-hoc interpolation. The 5:5 state is the equal-tooth, equal-radius synchronization throat; one-seat departures from that throat open opposite contact-rotation polarities. The formal element selector is the JS–SH route-gated element equation. Its first gate is the differential-integral-closure intersection Γ_JS^(1),elem = D_Sch ∩ I_Path^elem ∩ G_5:5. The physical element address is then promoted to the recursive principal address X_Z^(JS,*), the intersection-of-intersections core that survives electron-shell, proton-depth, neutral-burden, shell-capacity, radius, mass, ionization, and stability ledgers. The reproducibility ledger attached to the model is explicit. CODE 8100-546 preserves the 118-element audit under the selector-only rule, with mass mean error 0.3616573796%, first-ionization mean error 0.4389792664%, combined mean error 0.4003183230%, and 118/118 accepted recursive addresses. The same model fixes post-118 prediction rows before future comparison: Z = 119 and Z = 120 remain admissible inside the current eight-shell board, while Z = 121 is the first overflow boundary. These prediction rows are not counted inside the 118-row validation mean. The proton-depth terminal-lens ledger extends the same eight-depth board to quark-depth labels. Depths 1–6 are the visible comparison depths corresponding to u, d, c, s, t, b; depths 7 and 8 are the terminal prediction-only labels QD7 and QD8. QD7 and QD8 are stated as latent/locked proton-depth terminal-lens predictions of the ElementWave grammar, not as observed new Standard-Model quarks. The completed claim is a stand-alone matter-branch atomic model: a single closed-wave shell/depth grammar organizes electron-shell, proton-depth, neutral-burden, mass, ionization, post-118 boundary, and QD7/QD8 prediction ledgers without row-by-row residual fitting. The package is prepared for independent circulation, reproducibility, and provenance tracking. It contains the manuscript and associated code, output, ledger, and figure assets. This is a preprint / working manuscript and has not been peer reviewed. Keywords: mirror-depth atomic model; ElementWave; CRGE; JS-SH; periodic-table closure; 12-seat spherical shell; recursive element gate; maximal-overlap shell-depth address; proton-depth readout; electron-shell readout; neutron closure burden; first ionization; mass audit; post-118 prediction; Z=119; Z=120; Z=121; QD7; QD8; latent quark-depth prediction; reproducibility package ============================== UPDATE CRGE_ElementWave_V12_Manuscript CRGE_ElementWave_V13_SUBMISSION_READY_Manuscript CRGE_ElementWave_V24_MIRROR_DEPTH_ATOMIC_MODEL_Manuscript CRGE_ElementWave_V31_TABLE_LINK_REPAIR_Manuscript CRGE_ElementWave_V36_SUBMISSION_READY_DOI_21200005_Manuscript CRGE_ElementWave_V41_SUBMISSION_READY_DOI_21204544_Manuscript CRGE_ElementWave_V44_DOI_21100987_Manuscript CRGE_ElementWave_V48_CLAIM_STRENGTHENED_MANUSCRIPT
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
S. W. Hong (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: