Does anybody know if there exists a mathematical explanation of the Mendeleev table in quantum mechanics? In some textbooks (for example in "F.A.Berezin, M.A.Shubin. The Schrödinger Equation") the authors present quantum mechanics as an axiomatic system, so one could expect that there is a deduction from the axioms to the main results of the discipline. I wonder if there is a mathematical proof of the Mendeleev table?


P.S. I hope the following will not be offensive for physicists: by a mathematical proof I mean a chain of logical implications from axioms of the theory to its theorem. This is normal in mathematics. As an example, in Griffiths' book I do not see axioms at all, therefore I can't treat the reasonings at pages 186-193 as a proof of the Mendeleev table. By the way, that is why I did not want to ask this question at a physical forum: I do not think that people there will even understand my question. However, after Bill Cook's suggestion I made an experiment - and you can look at the results here: <https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16647/is-the-mendeleev-table-explained-in-quantum-mechanics>


So I ask my colleagues-mathematicians to be tolerant.


P.P.S. After closing this topic and reopening it again I received a lot of suggestions to reformulate my question, since in its original form it might seem too vague for mathematicians. So I suppose it will be useful to add here, that by the Mendeleev table I mean (not just a picture, as one can think, but) a system of propositions about the structure of atoms. For example, as I wrote here in comments, the Mendeleev table states that the first electronic orbit (shell) can have only 2 electrons, the second - 8, the third - again 8, the fourth - 18, and so on. Another regularity is the structure of subshells, etc. So my question is whether it is proved by now that these regularities (perhaps not all but some of them) are corollaries of a system of axioms like those from the Berezin-Shubin book. Of course, this assumes that the notions like atoms, shells, etc. must be properly defined, otherwise the corresponding statements could not be formulated. I consider this as a part of my question -- if experts will explain that the reasonable definitions are not found by now, this automatically will mean that the answer is 'no'.


The following reformulation of my question was suggested by Scott Carnahan at <http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1202/should-a-mathematician-be-a-robot/#Item_0> :
"Do we have the mathematical means to give a sufficiently precise description of the chemical properties of elements from quantum-mechanical first principles, such that the Mendeleev table becomes a natural organizational scheme?" 


I hope, this makes the question more clear.



Is the Mendeleev table explained in quantum mechanics?
I doubt any answer will be satisfactory. My opinion is that we are still very far from a mathematical justification. If we accept the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics, and if we make the approximation that the nucleus of the atom is just one heavy thing with $N$ positive charges, then the motion of the $N$ electrons is governed by a linear equation (Schrödinger) in ${\mathbb R}^{3N}$. The unknown is a function $\psi(r^1,\ldots,r^N,t)$ with the property (Pauli exclusion) that it has full skew-symmetry. For instance,
$$\psi(r^2,r^1,\ldots,r^N,t)=-\psi(r^1,r^2,\ldots,r^N,t).$$
In practice, we look for steady states $e^{i\omega t}\phi(r^1,r^2,\ldots,r^N)$. Then $\omega$ is the energy level.


Because of the very large space dimension, one cannot perform reliable calculations on computer, when $N$ is larger than a few units. One attempt to simplify the problem has been to postulate that $\phi$ is a *Slatter determinant*, which means that
$$\phi(r^1,r^2,\ldots,r^N)=\|a\_i(r^j)\|\_{1\le i,j\le N}.$$
The unknown is then an $N$-tuple of functions $a\_i$ over ${\mathbb R}^3$. Of course, we do not expect that steady states be really Slater determinants; after all, the Schrödinger equation does not preserve the class of Slater determinants. Thus there is a price to pay, which is to replace the Schrödinger equation by an other one, obtained by an averaging process (Hartree--Fock model). The drawback is that the new equation is non-linear. Such approximate states have been studied by P.-L. Lions & I. Catto in the 90's. 


**Update**. Suppose $N=2$ only. If we think to $\phi$ as a finite-dimensional object instead of an $L^2$-function, then it is nothing but a skew-symmetric matrix $A$. Approximation *à la Slater* consists in writing $A\sim XY^T-YX^T$, where $X$ and $Y$ are vectors. In other words, one approximate $A$ by a rank-two skew-symmetric matrix. The approximation must be in terms of the Hilbert-Schmidt norm (also named Frobenius, Schur): this norm is natural because of the requirement $\|\phi\|\_{L^2}=N$. If $\pm a\_1,\ldots,\pm a\_m$ are the pairs of eigenvalues of $A$, with $0\le a\_1\le\ldots\le a\_m$, then the best Slater approximation $B$ satisfies $\|B\|^2=2a\_m^2$, $\|A-B\|^2=2(a\_1^2+\cdots+a\_{m-1}^2)$. Not that good. Imagine how much worse it can be if $N$ is larger than $2$.


