Table of Elements

[elas]

A report on:

http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ChemScience/Volume/2010/11/Extended_elements.asp

 

contains the following statement:

 

“Now Pekka Pyykkö1 at the University of Helsinki has used a highly accurate computational model to predict electronic structures and therefore the periodic table positions of elements up to proton number 172 - far beyond the limit of elements that scientists can currently synthesise”.

1A suggested periodic table up to Z 172, based on Dirac–Fock calculations on atoms and ions

Pekka Pyykkö, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2010

DOI: 10.1039/c0cp01575j

 

Following on from a debate on:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/48561-composite-fermions-as-a-foundation-of-the-periodic-table/page__p__542912__fromsearch__1#entry542912

 

the proposal was tidied up and published on:

 

http://6951759periodictablepdf.blogspot.com/2010/10/periodic-table.html

 

As recommended by insane alien.

 

The method of predicting a new electron shell given in the blog, does not require a “highly accurate computational model” it shows that it is a matter of extreme simplicity as predicted by Newton:

 

It is to the glory of all God’s work, that they be done with great simplicity

Isaac Newton

 

All that is required is an extension of the table shown in the box (3, 5, 7, 9):

 

 

I will do the full extension this weekend.

Edited November 6, 2010 by elas

[elas]

The extended Table of Elements (below) shows how shells 8 and 9 can be predicted by mathematical progression. It also shows why shells 8 and 9 do not exist in that their existance would require an inner nucleus (indicated by a second '0' in col. F); while an inner nucleus consisting of t and b quarks might be theoretically possible there is no sign of such an atom existing in nature.

 

Edited November 24, 2010 by elas

[elas]

Due to family bereavement I am rather late with the promised extension. To avoid further delay I am submitting a graph that illustrates the heart of my case, largely because of the unexpected result.

 

 

The graph takes the number of electrons on each shell in a perfect system (i.e. with known anomalies removed) and extends the system to the next pair of (non-nuclear) shells (Periods 8 and 9). It can be seen that the structural pattern breaks down in the last third of Period 9; I hope to show that this is where a number of stable elements might be found. The work should be completed within two weeks.

 

The graph views the atomic wave of each element from the side hence the 'front' and 'back' are at the bottom and where the values overlap we are viewing the 'front' and 'back' of the wave at the same level.

Edited December 5, 2010 by elas

[Incendia]

...I still don't understand what you are saying...but it does look interesting.

[John Cuthber]

I'm not sure that anyone, except, perhaps, Elas, understands what Elas is saying. (Apart from the bereavement of course. Sorry to hear about that.)

Some of the diagrams are quite pretty and have nice colours in them.

 

I can postulate that the electron distribution of the outermost shell of element 172 is shaped like an elephant.

Nobody is ever going to prove me wrong.

It's not science.

[elas]

...I still don't understand what you are saying...but it does look interesting.

 

Below is a revision of an earlier Fig. showing how the periods occur in pairs and the mathematical sequences involved. The inset table is the crux of my arguement which is that there can only be one '0' as in the current seven period structure. Any attempt to find or predict an eighth period involves a (quantum?) leap to a higher systen that also has seven periods.

 

 

The earlier graph showing the super elements takes the number of electrons in each shell, removes the exceptions to Madelung's rule by moving the exceptions into line; and uses the result to predict the filling order of periods 8 and 9 (6 and 7 in the higher order). Seeing the result in mathematical table form misses the structural form that is clearly visible in the graph. Of course there will be (Madelung) exceptions, but the same applies to Pekka Pyykkö's predictions.

 

The classical prediction for Period 8 ends at Z168, Pekka Pyykkö's QT prediction ends at Z172, this is a difference between classical and quantum predictions that should be capable of resolution by experiment in the not to distant future.

 

Mathematical prediction is science as in QT and therefore can be proved wrong. Classical science takes the numbers provided by nature, QT finds numbers to fit the observed.

Edited December 5, 2010 by elas

[John Cuthber]

"Subject to resolution by experiment in the not to distant future."

LOL

[Incendia]

So you have basically predicted the elements up to 218? That's interesting... Can you put in into periodic table form? That would help...I think...

[elas]

"Subject to resolution by experiment in the not to distant future."

LOL

 

As are Pekka Pyykkö's predictions. and as were the prediction for numerous particles before their eventual discovery, so where is the difference?

 

So you have basically predicted the elements up to 218? That's interesting... Can you put in into periodic table form? That would help...I think...

 

I have used columns in place of rows because the convention requires that rows are limited to 18 elements, hence the Rare Earths usually appear in separate rows at the bottom of the Periodic Table. Such slavic devotion to convention makes it difficult to present elements in a natural form, but rotate my Table clockwise through 90 degrees and view only the element designations and you have the proposed Table of Elements; that is the standard form in reverse order, but with the Rare Earths and the predicted periods in their correct positions.

That said, I will do as requested if you still think it advisable, but that will not be ready until tomorrow.

Edited December 5, 2010 by elas

[insane_alien]

I have used columns in place of rows because the convention requires that rows are limited to 18 elements, hence the Rare Earths usually appear in separate rows at the bottom of the Periodic Table. Such slavic devotion to convention makes it difficult to present elements in a natural form, but rotate my Table clockwise through 90 degrees and view only the element designations and you have the proposed Table of Elements; that is the standard form in reverse order, but with the Rare Earths and the predicted periods in their correct positions.

That said, I will do as requested if you still think it advisable, but that will not be ready until tomorrow.

 

ehh, no, the periodic table is not limited to 18 columns. The lanthanides and actinides are shown below for the very simple reason that if you put them in with the rest then the table is very very wide and hard to represent well in books and posters. It is really an aesthetic choice to seperate them out.

 

example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_periodic_table

 

This shows the elements up to the hypothetical Unsepttriium(173) according the the layout rules of the periodic table without seperating the lanthanides and actinides.

[Incendia]

They should name the next three elements:

Newtonium - After Isaac Newton

Darwinium - After Charles Darwin

Telsarium - After Nikola Tesla

The random names given to the newest elements is just laziness. Has science lost it's grandeur?

Edited December 5, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[John Cuthber]

"As are Pekka Pyykkö's predictions. and as were the prediction for numerous particles before their eventual discovery, so where is the difference?"

The other particles are characterised by their decay products.

Nobody has done a lot of chemistry with the superheavy elements.

As they get heavier they get less stable.

The idea that anyone will ever do enough chemistry (or spectroscopy) to validate your predictions is laughable.

The idea that it will happen in "the not to distant future" shows how little you actually know.

[mississippichem]

Yeah, chemistry gets to be a super pain with elements way off the nuclear "island of stability". This work tends to not get research money either because no marketable ideas can come from a compound of an element with a 2 s half-life. Not to mention that spectroscopy makes less and less sense as oxidation states become less and less defined in high "n" f-, and predictably g- and h-orbitals.

 

They should name the next three elements:

Newtonium - After Isaac Newton

Darwinium - After Charles Darwin

Telsarium - After Nikola Tesla

 

 

The random names given to the newest elements is just laziness. Has science lost it's grandeur?

 

Lets go ahead and make the "un-pronouncable" Schrodingerium

[Incendia]

The idea that anyone will ever do enough chemistry (or spectroscopy) to validate your predictions is laughable.

The idea that it will happen in "the not to distant future" shows how little you actually know.

 

Don't be mean...By your logic the graviton can't exist because it would take a detector the size of Jupiter longer than 13.7 billion years to find 1.

[insane_alien]

he's not being mean. he is being realistic.

 

of course if you had a stable highz nucleus you could do chemistry with it, but you don't. some are unstable to the point that they decay long before any chemistry can even occur.

 

its not a technique limitation but a limitation of how things behave while following physical laws.

 

your expansion of his logic is flawed also because his logic doesn't mean that anything impractical to measure doesn't exist, it means something which cannot happen is impossible to measure.

[Moontanman]

One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.

Robert A. Heinlein

Edited December 5, 2010 by Moontanman

[elas]

ehh, no, the periodic table is not limited to 18 columns. The lanthanides and actinides are shown below for the very simple reason that if you put them in with the rest then the table is very very wide and hard to represent well in books and posters. It is really an aesthetic choice to seperate them out.

 

example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_periodic_table

 

This shows the elements up to the hypothetical Unsepttriium(173) according the the layout rules of the periodic table without seperating the lanthanides and actinides.

 

Perhaps the use of the word 'limited' is wrong, but wikipedia and you are admitting that it is the convention.

 

The wikipedia article shows that some work is being down on higher Z numbers; I show that there is an alternative classical prediction that requires a different approach.

Edited December 5, 2010 by elas

[insane_alien]

It is the convention, but not for the reasons you posed. it is merely aesthetic reasons. the same reason books are not written in a single line is the same reason the periodic table has the separation.

 

there is nothing stopping you writing a book in a single linebut its going to be a long bloody line requiring a huge bit of paper.

 

when the periodic table was first drawn up, paper and printing techniques were nowhere near as advanced as now. aslo, the periodic table is commonly found in books. It is advantageous to have the periodic table drawn in such a way that it is readable so it conveys information. It is also shown in most if not all periodic tables that the lanthanides and actinides should be inbetween the alkali-earths and the transitions.

[elas]

he's not being mean. he is being realistic.

 

of course if you had a stable highz nucleus you could do chemistry with it, but you don't. some are unstable to the point that they decay long before any chemistry can even occur.

 

its not a technique limitation but a limitation of how things behave while following physical laws.

 

your expansion of his logic is flawed also because his logic doesn't mean that anything impractical to measure doesn't exist, it means something which cannot happen is impossible to measure.

 

My contention is that we are not looking in the right place for a stable high Z nucleus.

 

Yeah, chemistry gets to be a super pain with elements way off the nuclear "island of stability". This work tends to not get research money either because no marketable ideas can come from a compound of an element with a 2 s half-life. Not to mention that spectroscopy makes less and less sense as oxidation states become less and less defined in high "n" f-, and predictably g- and h-orbitals./i]

 

I was under the impression that there is an active search for an 'island of stability' in the higher Z numbers and my predictions indicate that we are not looking in the right place. First we need to determine the quark structure of the nuclear particles and then decide if they can be created in the laboratory.

insane alien is sceptical and I admit that I cannot work at that level; as I have said on many occassions, I search for the 'simplicity' predicted by Newton. Classical prediction of higher periods is so simple that I marvel that it was not done years ago, why did we have to wait for QT and why do they produce different results?

 

Who knows, perhaps stable super elements would be highly marketable in the material world.

[mississippichem]

...my predictions indicate that Classical prediction of higher periods is so simple that I marvel that it was not done years ago, why did we have to wait for QT and why do they produce different results?

 

Electrons, neutrons and protons don't behave as classical bodies. The Bohr Model, classical physics' best shot at at the atom, deviates from experiment significantly. If helium was moved to group II, and the f-block was stuck in the table between the s and d blocks, the current periodic table describes the Aufbau principle very well; with a few exceptions like Cr and Cu in the ground state. Even these exceptions are explainable by treatments like Slater's rules and the concept of spin pairing energy. Quantum mechanics has been dead on accurate at confirming the organization of the periodic table and has succeeded where classical theory has failed.

[elas]

Electrons, neutrons and protons don't behave as classical bodies. The Bohr Model, classical physics' best shot at at the atom, deviates from experiment significantly. If helium was moved to group II, and the f-block was stuck in the table between the s and d blocks, the current periodic table describes the Aufbau principle very well; with a few exceptions like Cr and Cu in the ground state. Even these exceptions are explainable by treatments like Slater's rules and the concept of spin pairing energy. Quantum mechanics has been dead on accurate at confirming the organization of the periodic table and has succeeded where classical theory has failed.

 

Slater produced a semi-empirical model that gives a reasonable approximation; my proposal gives a numerically exact explanation of the cause of the exceptions to Madelung’s rule based on the electron shell structure folund by experiment; there is nothing empirical in my proposal. In explaining electron shell structure I have shown that classical physics produces the mathematical explanation of greatest accuracy and the greatest simplicity; in addition I have shown how this connects to QT via the theory of Composite Fermions.

Edited December 6, 2010 by elas

[elas]

The response to my proposal has caused the review that, as usual in my submissions; leads to corrections and simplification.

 

The super element graph is wrong in that it shows nine periods where only seven are possible. What is correct is the proof that more than seven periods is impossible in that it is not possible (using protons and electrons); to create a new periodic system. The simplified Table of Elements and the inset (Table 1), shown below makes clear that classical physics can be used to show that the QT predictions of Professor Pekka Pyykkö are open to question.

 

For the origin of the values used (OFe and IFe) see:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/48561-composite-fermions-as-a-foundation-of-the-periodic-table/page__p__542912__fromsearch__1#entry542912

 

[Incendia]

I think the original periodic table was simpler...

[elas]

I think the original periodic table was simpler...

 

Will take your advice and use original diagram in any future article, thanks for that,

elas

[elas]

Electrons, neutrons and protons don't behave as classical bodies. The Bohr Model, classical physics' best shot at at the atom, deviates from experiment significantly. If helium was moved to group II, and the f-block was stuck in the table between the s and d blocks, the current periodic table describes the Aufbau principle very well; with a few exceptions like Cr and Cu in the ground state. Even these exceptions are explainable by treatments like Slater's rules and the concept of spin pairing energy. Quantum mechanics has been dead on accurate at confirming the organization of the periodic table and has succeeded where classical theory has failed.

 

To clarify my position add to my previous reply that my work shows that:

 

Classical physics explains structure,

and I would follow that with:

Quantum theory explains actions.

 

Continuing from this forum, I now realise that my submission on the Table of Elements can be revised to give a clearer presentation and that work is now ongoing.

Edited December 10, 2010 by elas