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.

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.

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.

Is there an objective to the neutron-based periodic table or are you addressing it out of curiosity only? (not a bad thing)

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.

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.

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.

The chemistry of elements in the standard, proton-based periodic table has no significance in environments like the Sun. In the Sun we have neutron chemistry. This is well-known and documented in standard astronomical text-books. I'm not offering anything new, just pointing out that we can build a new periodic table based on old facts, one that is better suited to us.

I guess it's a bit like Newtonian physics. It's a handy approximation for the little corner of the universe we occupy, where gravity is weak and things are moving slowly, but woefully inaccurate on a cosmic scale; hence general relativity.

That said, there's not a huge amount we can use GR for on a day to day basis, and much the same would go for neutron chemistry.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:In the Sun we have neutron chemistry.

Is that true?

In the interior of a star we are principally interested in nucleosynthesis (I think it’s fair to say), and that process depends crucially on the nuclear binding energy per nucleon in the various nuclei that are scooting about in there. Why? because the fusion of nuclei releases energy (which is what creates the luminosity of the star and prevents it from collapsing under its own gravity), and the lower the difference between the mean binding energies in the available nuclei, the less energy is released in each fusion reaction and the faster the star therefore has to run through what nuclei are left. Once the “iron peak” has been reached, any further fusion to form even heavier nuclei is an endothermic (energy-absorbing) reaction, which can’t contribute to luminosity or help to sustain the star against collapse, and it therefore immediately goes nova or supernova.

That mean binding energy is broadly a function of mass number (which is the number of protons plus the number of neutrons); so it is not a function of atomic number (which is the number of protons) - but not the number of neutrons either. So this is not a case of “neutron chemistry”.

In those late stages of a star’s life cycle, shortly before it goes nova or supernova, it is useful to plot a chart of nuclides with the atomic number on the vertical axis and the neutron number on the horizontal axis, so we see all the isotopes of a particular element in a horizontal line: the stable and the unstable ones.
On that chart we can plot the regions for which different reactions are relevant to the unstable isotopes: beta minus decay in the lower right region of the chart and neutron capture in the top left, with the diagonal “valley of stability” in between.
And we can plot the pathway likely to be taken by a particular nucleus, such as the s-process pathway (slow neutron capture) or the r-process pathway (rapid neutron capture), which will depend on how many protons and how many neutrons it has when we start to consider it, as well as the layout of the chart itself.
So here again, it is true to say that the number of neutrons is very important, but not in isolation: the number of protons is equally important.
This too is a case of “nucleon chemistry” rather than “neutron chemistry”. (If “chemistry” is the right word here at all: it’s nuclear physics, really. Chemistry in the normal sense doesn’t start to happen until the nucleus acquires some electrons.)

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.

It's nice when science answers stupidity. Well done Evolving!

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.

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.

Yes, the atomic number is interesting whether it is in the Sun or on the Earth.

However, there is no reason to base the atomic number on the number of protons, at least in the case of the Sun where there are no significant proton-electron chemical interactions.

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.

There will not be any proton-electron chemistry in or on a Neutron star because of the high temperature, and/or because the electrons have departed and everything gets squeezed down to a bunch of neutrons. So a new, neutron-based periodic table might be worth formulating.

Despite the immense pressures there might still be neutron clumps and exchanges between them, which could form the basis for a neutron-based, periodic table, suitable for matter at high pressures or temperatures.

I suggest you read up on neutron stars before spouting off odd postulations about them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

scott1328 wrote:It's nice when science answers stupidity. Well done Evolving!

A common stance. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boo_Hurrah_theory

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?

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?

It's hard for for those skeptics who don't know anything about science but want to fight against supernaturalism. It means that they don't have any ammunition to combat scientific claims. It's sad really, but there are two strategies that you might find useful:
.
I think the best thing to do for someone who finds themselves ignorant about the sciences is either
1) not to comment on the correctness or otherwise of claimed scientific claims
2) analyse the philosophical grammar for conceptual mistakes.
You might want to try one of those strategies.

Heed thine own advice. You have demonstrated nothing but the most shAllow grasp of the topics you have raised, and you misunderstand elementary school level science.

I suppose you think you are being skeptical and iconoclastic, but your science arguments are not even worthy of Ray Comfort.

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.

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.

Now I think, we can see what a curious conceptual cake Chemistry is.

Chemistry is a description of the behaviour of atomic particles and their macro-structures - but only certain particles and structures at certain temperatures, and often only regarding certain structures relevant to life-forms.
As such, chemistry is a mix of topics taken from nuclear physics, mechanical engineering, and bio-sciences. And unlike nuclear physics, there is no single principle that holds the science of Chemistry together. Don't I bloody know it mate. I was one of their followers for a number of years. Ah, those heady days. Good to move on though.

This is why I suggest building the periodic table based on neutrons is a good exercise for the mind. More than any other development in Chemistry, it is the periodic table that can prevent us from seeing Chemistry in the larger scheme of things.

Building a neutron-based periodic table would be a fascinating exercise for schoolkids and would free people up from the idea that Chemistry is a single conceptual topic. I think that deserves top marks.