rationalskepticism.org

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.