Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
Arthur Methoxy wrote:The chemical periodic table is a proton based heirarchy. It suits life-forms to build the chemical table this way as the proton-electron diad is actively kinetic at ambient, life-supporting temperatures and a little above. This proton-electron based periodic table is an anthropomorphic conceit, vital to our interests.
However, on the universe stage, it is the proton-neutron diad that becomes the definer of object behaviours, in neutron stars and stellar processes. It is possible to build the periodic table based on the number of neutrons, and so ignoring proton-electron effects.
Thus in the neutron-based periodic table the first element is deuterium, and the next element is tritium-helium. Hydrogen is not an element in this table. Chemical reactions involving the gain and loss of neutrons would be common. Such a periodic table would have little use for life-forms in their daily practice.
Black-hole chemistry would be different again. Neither the proton nor neutron-based heirarchy of elements would be useful. Instead, we would have a chemical periodic table based on other, primitive or fundamental particles.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
campermon wrote:Arthur Methoxy wrote:The chemical periodic table is a proton based heirarchy. It suits life-forms to build the chemical table this way as the proton-electron diad is actively kinetic at ambient, life-supporting temperatures and a little above. This proton-electron based periodic table is an anthropomorphic conceit, vital to our interests.
However, on the universe stage, it is the proton-neutron diad that becomes the definer of object behaviours, in neutron stars and stellar processes. It is possible to build the periodic table based on the number of neutrons, and so ignoring proton-electron effects.
Thus in the neutron-based periodic table the first element is deuterium, and the next element is tritium-helium. Hydrogen is not an element in this table. Chemical reactions involving the gain and loss of neutrons would be common. Such a periodic table would have little use for life-forms in their daily practice.
Black-hole chemistry would be different again. Neither the proton nor neutron-based heirarchy of elements would be useful. Instead, we would have a chemical periodic table based on other, primitive or fundamental particles.
Citations needed.
trubble76 wrote:Is there an objective to the neutron-based periodic table or are you addressing it out of curiosity only? (not a bad thing)
Arthur Methoxy wrote:trubble76 wrote:Is there an objective to the neutron-based periodic table or are you addressing it out of curiosity only? (not a bad thing)
Yes, the objective is twofold.
First, to loosen the conceptual hold that traditional teaching may have over us in its depiction of chemistry, the elements and of a non-negotiable periodic table.
Second, to offer the suggestion that the idea of chemistry and the elements is dependent on pragmatic considerations.
For example, the school-taught, standard, description of the proton-electron based periodic table and the chemistry of its elements is useful in the temperature range from near-absolute zero to about 4000 degrees.
Chemistry is a description of the behaviour of atomic particles, and that description will change with higher temperatures and pressures. Once we get to higher temperatures (in the millions) we find neutron chemistry taking over, with electrons playing an insignificant role. The periodic table based on neutron chemistry will be different to that based on standard proton-electron chemistry.
trubble76 wrote:Arthur Methoxy wrote:trubble76 wrote:Is there an objective to the neutron-based periodic table or are you addressing it out of curiosity only? (not a bad thing)
Yes, the objective is twofold.
First, to loosen the conceptual hold that traditional teaching may have over us in its depiction of chemistry, the elements and of a non-negotiable periodic table.
Second, to offer the suggestion that the idea of chemistry and the elements is dependent on pragmatic considerations.
For example, the school-taught, standard, description of the proton-electron based periodic table and the chemistry of its elements is useful in the temperature range from near-absolute zero to about 4000 degrees.
Chemistry is a description of the behaviour of atomic particles, and that description will change with higher temperatures and pressures. Once we get to higher temperatures (in the millions) we find neutron chemistry taking over, with electrons playing an insignificant role. The periodic table based on neutron chemistry will be different to that based on standard proton-electron chemistry.
I still don't see the point. Academically, I can't argue with you but practically the current education standards and periodic table seem to be fit for purpose whereas you tell us your proposed upgrade only finds utility in extreme boundary conditions.
Arthur Methoxy wrote:In the Sun we have neutron chemistry.
Arthur Methoxy wrote:campermon wrote:Arthur Methoxy wrote:The chemical periodic table is a proton based heirarchy. It suits life-forms to build the chemical table this way as the proton-electron diad is actively kinetic at ambient, life-supporting temperatures and a little above. This proton-electron based periodic table is an anthropomorphic conceit, vital to our interests.
However, on the universe stage, it is the proton-neutron diad that becomes the definer of object behaviours, in neutron stars and stellar processes. It is possible to build the periodic table based on the number of neutrons, and so ignoring proton-electron effects.
Thus in the neutron-based periodic table the first element is deuterium, and the next element is tritium-helium. Hydrogen is not an element in this table. Chemical reactions involving the gain and loss of neutrons would be common. Such a periodic table would have little use for life-forms in their daily practice.
Black-hole chemistry would be different again. Neither the proton nor neutron-based heirarchy of elements would be useful. Instead, we would have a chemical periodic table based on other, primitive or fundamental particles.
Citations needed.
Any chemistry introduction text book will give the periodic table http://www.periodictableforkids.com/ and describe how the ascendency of elements is based on the number of protons.
It is logically feasible to re-arrange that table based on the number of neutrons. You have to know a little about chemistry to know that, for example, tritium and helium both contain the same number of neutrons (2). This would be the second element in the neutron based heirarchy. The first would be the element with one neutron - deuterium. Basic stuff.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
Evolving wrote:
And once the element emerges from the disintegrating (exploding) star, it’s once again the atomic number which is most interesting, because that determines what element the nucleus belongs to, and outside that extreme environment within the star, that is what is most relevant, because the nucleus may now be able to acquire some electrons and some proper chemistry can ensue. Even biology, if the nucleus is really lucky.
campermon wrote:Arthur Methoxy wrote:campermon wrote:Arthur Methoxy wrote:The chemical periodic table is a proton based heirarchy. It suits life-forms to build the chemical table this way as the proton-electron diad is actively kinetic at ambient, life-supporting temperatures and a little above. This proton-electron based periodic table is an anthropomorphic conceit, vital to our interests.
However, on the universe stage, it is the proton-neutron diad that becomes the definer of object behaviours, in neutron stars and stellar processes. It is possible to build the periodic table based on the number of neutrons, and so ignoring proton-electron effects.
Thus in the neutron-based periodic table the first element is deuterium, and the next element is tritium-helium. Hydrogen is not an element in this table. Chemical reactions involving the gain and loss of neutrons would be common. Such a periodic table would have little use for life-forms in their daily practice.
Black-hole chemistry would be different again. Neither the proton nor neutron-based heirarchy of elements would be useful. Instead, we would have a chemical periodic table based on other, primitive or fundamental particles.
Citations needed.
Any chemistry introduction text book will give the periodic table http://www.periodictableforkids.com/ and describe how the ascendency of elements is based on the number of protons.
It is logically feasible to re-arrange that table based on the number of neutrons. You have to know a little about chemistry to know that, for example, tritium and helium both contain the same number of neutrons (2). This would be the second element in the neutron based heirarchy. The first would be the element with one neutron - deuterium. Basic stuff.
I would assert that the vast majority of the universe lies within a T range where chemistry is better explained in a proton based 'hierarchy'.
Even in a neutron star 'traditional' chemistry is happening.
I can't see the utility of your proposal.
scott1328 wrote:It's nice when science answers stupidity. Well done Evolving!
Arthur Methoxy wrote:scott1328 wrote:It's nice when science answers stupidity. Well done Evolving!
A common stance. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boo_Hurrah_theory
scott1328 wrote:Arthur Methoxy wrote:scott1328 wrote:It's nice when science answers stupidity. Well done Evolving!
A common stance. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boo_Hurrah_theory
How is it possible that you misunderstand every topic you attempt to reference?
romansh wrote:It would be really hard (torturous) to explain chemical reactions in terms of neutrons .... we would not even do it in terms of protons. Chemistry is about electron exchange. Take hydrogen and deuterium ... a significant difference in relative masses yet the redox potentials are similar ... 0.00 V for hydrogen and -0.044 V for deuterium.
I would love to see a Pourbaix diagram using 'neutrons' instead of chemical potentials!
To be fair I did learn about nuclear chemistry in a chemistry class at high school. But I can't help thinking a better title for your thread might be neutron physics.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest