Better use Quantum Numbers for PT formulation

[Vts]

Currently standard IUPAC Periodic Table is based on metallic/nonmetallic properties of the elements. But, I believe, it is going to change rather soon. The Periodic Table can be formulated to follow the Quantum Numbers n, l, ml and ms, as recently was demonstrated (ADOMAH PT). The true Periodic Table have to follow natural grouping of the elements in accordance with the n+l rule, which is the basis for the periodicity.

 

It was reported recently that element 114 (Uuq), that was expected to be similar to lead (Pb), behaves more like a noble gas ! The more we find out about heavy elements the more surprises we'll get and the good old IUPAC PT will not hold.

[ajb]

When I saw the title I though this was a post on PT-symmetric quantum mechanics. Oh well...

[John Cuthber]

Here's the IUPAC periodic table.

old.iupac.org/reports/periodic_table/IUPAC_Periodic_Table-1Nov04.pdf

You place the elements in order of increasing atomic number.

When you get to an inert gas you drop to the next line.

Then you put breaks in each line to get the trends of things like colour (for the halogens) reactivity (the Gp1 and Gp 2 metals) or common valency states to line up.

Why in the name of all that's holy do you think this is to do with metals vs non metals?

Incidentally, the s, d p and f blocks are named from spectroscopic properties of the emision lines (sharp, principle, diffuse and fundamental). Spectrosopy is clearly related to QM.

Why begin a post by saying something that's clearly nonsense like "Currently standard IUPAC Periodic Table is based on metallic/nonmetallic properties of the elements."?

It's not, and it never was.

[Vts]

"When you get to an inert gas you drop to the next line."

 

You just made my point, John. Now, tell me why do you drop to the next line when you get to inert gas? Why not to follow spdf (l=0,1,2,3) instead of sfdp (l=0,3,2,1)?

 

Don't be quick to call my post a nonsense. It is not. IUPAC Periodic table is nonsense, because it cuts sequence in acoordance with metallic/nonmetallic/inert gas properties of the elements and not in accordance with the quantum numbers. Just see list of n+l values for last electron listed in order of atomic number Z below:

 

1122333333334444444455554555545555555566665666556666666677777777777777777777777677777777888888888888888888...

 

New period starts when "n+l" reaches new high value. These are the natural periods:

 

11, 22, 33333333, 44444444, 555545555455555555, 666656665566666666, 77777777777777777777777677777777, 888888888888888888...

 

And this is how IUPAC Table cuts it?

 

11, 22333333, 33444444, 445555455554555555, 556666566655666666, 66777777777777777777777677777777, 77888888888888888888...

 

Do you think this is right way to cut the sequence from the quantum perspective? (where, "n+l" rule is the basis for the periodic law).