The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Could it be a good idea to form a new periodic table?  (Read 2878 times)

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
I was looking at neutrons, and neutronium.

And notice that neutrons have a greater mass than protons.

Yet neutronium has a Au of 0 because it contains no protons.

So I was wondering if it might not be a good idea to design a new table system that gives an Atomic value based upon an inter-related corelation of Protons, neutrons and electrons.

Hydrogen has no neutrons and one proton so would surely be first as neutronium has a greater mass.

But then does this already exist? If so what is it called?


 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Could it be a good idea to form a new periodic table?
« Reply #1 on: 30/03/2011 16:40:50 »
The periodic table has great predictive power through the groups, periods, and blocks; and as it is purely a classification/educative method then any other periodic table would have to at least as much 'power', add new forms of information/prediction, and not be totally confusing.

There are plenty of other periodic tables - perhaps your suggestion has been tried already - but in an quasi-evolutionary sense, the one we have at the moment is the one that survives and is used because it's the best so far.

And is neutronium really an element? - it's either a degenerate phase of matter found in the centre of neutron stars or its a bit sci-fi.
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Could it be a good idea to form a new periodic table?
« Reply #2 on: 30/03/2011 17:35:23 »
The periodic table as currently used is based on the chemistry of the different elements. The effect of the number of neutrons on the chemistry of the elements is almost completely negilgible (actually, for rather subtle reasons relating to the quantisation of bond energies this is not quite true for very light elements, particularly hydrogen, but near enough).

Re-classifying the periodic table according to some sort of scheme that included the number of neutrons as well as the number of protons would mean that carbon-12 (6 protons, 6 neutrons) would appear as a seperate "element" from carbon-13 (6 protons, 7 neutrons). Which would be of no use or interest to chemists (who are the people who use the periodic table), and whilst such a classification might be of interest to nuclear physicists, I don't think they're much interested, for the most part, in the chemistry of the elements they're working with (except once they get to the point of trying to engineer an application).

So no, I don't think this is an idea with any legs to speak of.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
Could it be a good idea to form a new periodic table?
« Reply #3 on: 30/03/2011 18:23:32 »
The periodic table as currently used is based on the chemistry of the different elements. The effect of the number of neutrons on the chemistry of the elements is almost completely negilgible (actually, for rather subtle reasons relating to the quantisation of bond energies this is not quite true for very light elements, particularly hydrogen, but near enough).

Re-classifying the periodic table according to some sort of scheme that included the number of neutrons as well as the number of protons would mean that carbon-12 (6 protons, 6 neutrons) would appear as a seperate "element" from carbon-13 (6 protons, 7 neutrons).

That was the point to a degree, you would have a list in an order, of all the atomic structures, and each would be listed in terms of it's neutron, proton, electron counts, and still in terms of gases, it would just be a different tool, I'm not talking about replacing the current table but writing a different one.



Which would be of no use or interest to chemists (who are the people who use the periodic table),

I'm sure it could be of use somewhere.



and whilst such a classification might be of interest to nuclear physicists, I don't think they're much interested, for the most part, in the chemistry of the elements they're working with (except once they get to the point of trying to engineer an application).

So no, I don't think this is an idea with any legs to speak of.

Well you would have to set a scale first anyway. Au number plus a number for neutron mass plus number of electrons.

Hydrogen 1 au + electron 1, I would make that 1.1

In theory it would give every possible element an individual number, no two atomic structures are the same. In terms of Maths I thought that would be a good thing.

You could argue they already have an individual number but it's just based in Protons at the moment. And as you say Carbon 12 and 13 would be seen as different and have a differnt value.

I mean the periodic table helped us find new atomic structures.

A assume this could as well.

What if we did a table but with neutron count? 
« Last Edit: 30/03/2011 18:50:07 by Wiybit »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Could it be a good idea to form a new periodic table?
« Reply #4 on: 30/03/2011 19:28:51 »
The physicists already have such a table, and I wish them the best of luck memorising it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_nuclides_(complete)
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
Could it be a good idea to form a new periodic table?
« Reply #5 on: 30/03/2011 19:45:52 »
The physicists already have such a table, and I wish them the best of luck memorising it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_nuclides_(complete)

Thanks bored chemist, funny seeing it slant, but then numbers of neutron is in some way related to the numbers of protons.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Could it be a good idea to form a new periodic table?
« Reply #6 on: 30/03/2011 23:17:51 »
A single neutron is not stable and decays by the emission of an electron to become a proton with a half life of about 14 minutes.  Because it has no orbiting electron it does not take part in normal chemical reactions and therefore has no place in a normal periodic table of stable elements with chemical properties.  It does take part in nuclear reactions and has its place in a periodic table of nuclear types.  These have very different groupings of stability  these shells and structural elements are partially known  see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_structure  for more information.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
Could it be a good idea to form a new periodic table?
« Reply #7 on: 31/03/2011 07:24:31 »
A single neutron is not stable and decays by the emission of an electron to become a proton with a half life of about 14 minutes.  Because it has no orbiting electron it does not take part in normal chemical reactions and therefore has no place in a normal periodic table of stable elements with chemical properties.  It does take part in nuclear reactions and has its place in a periodic table of nuclear types.  These have very different groupings of stability  these shells and structural elements are partially known  see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_structure  for more information.



Thanks soul surfer.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Could it be a good idea to form a new periodic table?
« Reply #8 on: 31/03/2011 09:01:38 »
This is the nearest thing to your periodic table of nuclides.  It shows all known nuclei both stable and unstable together with their decay paths  http://www-nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vchart/index.html  If you look right at the bottom left you will see that it includes the solitary neutron. 

Note also that no multiple neutron states are known to last any significant time (nanoseconds) under normal conditions it takes the immense pressure inside a neutron star to push neutrons together.  The reason for this is that although they have no net charge they do have spin which prevents them from occupying the same quantum state. The surface of a neutron star would not be neutronium but a layer of "normal" degenerate nucleii with some sot of atmosphere I expect.

Looking at the patterns of stability it is clear that the situation is far more complex than electron shells in normal atoms but it is quite clear that there are patterns of enhanced proton stability (horizontal lines) and neutron stability (vertical lines) and that these are at different numbers.
« Last Edit: 31/03/2011 09:07:48 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline Pikaia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Could it be a good idea to form a new periodic table?
« Reply #9 on: 31/03/2011 16:03:53 »
Interesting fact from Wiki: "Neutronium is a proposed name for a substance composed purely out of neutrons. The word was coined by scientist Andreas von Antropoff in 1926 (before the discovery of the neutron itself)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Could it be a good idea to form a new periodic table?
« Reply #9 on: 31/03/2011 16:03:53 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums