Skip to main content

Feature - Can you discover the periodic table?

Source: Wikipedia
I follow the excellent historian and philosopher of chemistry Eric Scerri on Facebook and a recent post of his intrigued me.

In it, Eric uses the verb 'discovered' for what Mendeleev did with periodic table. When I queried this, he suggested that the use of the term depended on whether or not you are a realist. But I'm not sure if that's true.

Let's take a simpler example, then come back to the periodic table. Specifically, we'll use the star Betelgeuse, the distinctly red one of the four main stars of Orion.

If I'm a realist*, then I think there is something real out there that I am labelling Betelgeuse. In good Kantian fashion, I can't know the reality - the 'Ding and sich' - but I can report on the sensory data from Betelgeuse and believe that I am talking about something that really exists. As it exists independent of humanity, we can discover it. However, Betelgeuse is also a class M star on the endearingly random looking stellar classification system that goes from O to B, A, F, G, K, and M. This system is not part of the reality that is Betelgeuse, it is a classification system that people devised - it's a representation of something - a different class of thing to a star. As such, the classification system cannot be discovered: it has to be invented or created by human beings.

If I am a non-realist, who presumably doesn't thing there is a defined reality behind the label Betelgeuse, this has no effect on the constructed classification system, which is still invented or created.

Let's now shift that picture to Mendelev and the periodic table. As a realist I can accept that there are relationships between different atoms based on their atomic weights and properties - that is something that can be discovered. But like the stellar classification system, I would suggest that a periodic table is a representation, a model, not an aspect of reality. As such, even as a realist, I would suggest it can only be created or devised, not discovered.

* Note this is my interpretation of these terms - not everyone will necessarily agree

UPDATED - Eric has kindly replied - his response is below. I still respectfully disagree - not that there isn't some inherent structure reflecting atomic structure, but just that the concept of a two dimensional table on a piece of paper is just not a natural object - it's an artificial human model, based on the available data - and as such I don't believe it can be 'discovered'. I perhaps confused the issue by bringing in the stellar classification system, which I only intended as a simpler example to start with, but seems to have got in the way of the point!

Eric Scerri: You raise a very interesting question.  However I want to respectfully disagree with you since I think that the two cases you compare are not analogous in the way that you claim they might be.

In the case of the periodic table there is no continuity between each of the elements.  What I mean is that there are no intermediate elements with fractional atomic numbers.  The elements are strictly discrete a feature was in a sense a foreshadowing of the discovery of the discreteness of quantum mechanics.  Not surprisingly the periodic table is broadly speaking explained by quantum mechanics, which it helped in getting started in the first place (Bohr, Pauli etc.).

In the case of the Russell-Hertzprung diagram one is dealing with a continuum of possibilities, an infinite number of intermediate cases.

Returning to the periodic table, we now understand why an element falls into a particular group and shows similarities with several other elements.  It’s because they share the same number of valence electrons.  Of course electronic configuration does not cause chemical behavior in any strong sense of causation and it is more of a correlation between number of outer electrons and chemical behavior.  The deeper ‘cause’ is understood by appealing to the Schr√∂dinger equation for any particular atom which captures the dynamics of the atom in addition than the mere number of outer electrons.  

Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no counterparts to either such features in the case of the classification of stars.

What I am really driving at is this.  In the case of the periodic table one has a natural system of classification and perhaps the most natural system of classification one can think of in all of science.

In the case of the R-H diagram we have an example of an artificial system of classification.  There is nothing intrinsic in the stars that allows us to demarcate between one classification label and another.  Stars could have been classified otherwise, and so it’s not a ‘natural system’.  To take a more extreme example, the Dewey Decimal system of book classification is also artificial.  It is we who decide how books in the various disciplines should be subdivided and ordered.  

In the case of the periodic table nature is being carved at the joints to use a favorite phrase among realists.  The ordering principle of atomic number is given to us by nature.  It is not imposed artificially.   

Feature by Brian Clegg

I follow the excellent historian and philosopher of chemistry Eric Scerri on Facebook and a recent post of his intrigued me.

In it, Eric uses the verb 'discovered' for what Mendeleev did with periodic table. When I queried this, he suggested that the use of the term depended on whether or not you are a realist. But I'm not sure if that's true.

Let's take a simpler example, then come back to the periodic table. Specifically, we'll use the star Betelgeuse, the distinctly red one of the four main stars of Orion.

If I'm a realist*, then I think there is something real out there that I am labelling Betelgeuse. In good Kantian fashion, I can't know the reality - the 'Ding and sich' - but I can report on the sensory data from Betelgeuse and believe that I am talking about something that really exists. As it exists independent of humanity, we can discover it. However, Betelgeuse is also a class M star on the endearingly random looking stellar classification system that goes from O to B, A, F, G, K, and M. This system is not part of the reality that is Betelgeuse, it is a classification system that people devised - it's a representation of something - a different class of thing to a star. As such, the classification system cannot be discovered: it has to be invented or created by human beings.

If I am a non-realist, who presumably doesn't thing there is a defined reality behind the label Betelgeuse, this has no effect on the constructed classification system, which is still invented or created.

Let's now shift that picture to Mendelev and the periodic table. As a realist I can accept that there are relationships between different atoms based on their atomic weights and properties - that is something that can be discovered. But like the stellar classification system, I would suggest that a periodic table is a representation, a model, not an aspect of reality. As such, even as a realist, I would suggest it can only be created or devised, not discovered.

* Note this is my interpretation of these terms - not everyone will necessarily agree

UPDATED - Eric has kindly replied - his response is below. I still respectfully disagree - not that there isn't some inherent structure reflecting atomic structure, but just that the concept of a two dimensional table on a piece of paper is just not a natural object - it's an artificial human model, based on the available data - and as such I don't believe it can be 'discovered'. I perhaps confused the issue by bringing in the stellar classification system, which I only intended as a simpler example to start with, but seems to have got in the way of the point!

Eric Scerri: You raise a very interesting question.  However I want to respectfully disagree with you since I think that the two cases you compare are not analogous in the way that you claim they might be.

In the case of the periodic table there is no continuity between each of the elements.  What I mean is that there are no intermediate elements with fractional atomic numbers.  The elements are strictly discrete a feature was in a sense a foreshadowing of the discovery of the discreteness of quantum mechanics.  Not surprisingly the periodic table is broadly speaking explained by quantum mechanics, which it helped in getting started in the first place (Bohr, Pauli etc.).

In the case of the Russell-Hertzprung diagram one is dealing with a continuum of possibilities, an infinite number of intermediate cases.

Returning to the periodic table, we now understand why an element falls into a particular group and shows similarities with several other elements.  It’s because they share the same number of valence electrons.  Of course electronic configuration does not cause chemical behavior in any strong sense of causation and it is more of a correlation between number of outer electrons and chemical behavior.  The deeper ‘cause’ is understood by appealing to the Schr√∂dinger equation for any particular atom which captures the dynamics of the atom in addition than the mere number of outer electrons.  

Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no counterparts to either such features in the case of the classification of stars.

What I am really driving at is this.  In the case of the periodic table one has a natural system of classification and perhaps the most natural system of classification one can think of in all of science.

In the case of the R-H diagram we have an example of an artificial system of classification.  There is nothing intrinsic in the stars that allows us to demarcate between one classification label and another.  Stars could have been classified otherwise, and so it’s not a ‘natural system’.  To take a more extreme example, the Dewey Decimal system of book classification is also artificial.  It is we who decide how books in the various disciplines should be subdivided and ordered.  


In the case of the periodic table nature is being carved at the joints to use a favorite phrase among realists.  The ordering principle of atomic number is given to us by nature.  It is not imposed artificially.   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Patricia Fara - Four Way Interview

Patricia Fara lectures in the history of science at Cambridge University, where she is a Fellow of Clare College. She was the President of the British Society for the History of Science (2016-18) and her prize-winning book, Science: A Four Thousand Year History (OUP, 2009), has been translated into nine languages. An experienced public lecturer, Patricia Fara appears regularly in TV documentaries and radio programmes. She also contributes articles and reviews to many popular magazines and journals, including History Today, BBC History, New Scientist, Nature and the Times Literary SupplementHer new book is Erasmus Darwin.

Why history of science?
I read physics at university, but half-way through the course I realised that had been a big mistake. Although I relished the intellectual challenge, I was bored by the long hours spent lining up recalcitrant instruments in dusty laboratories. Why was nobody encouraging us to think about the big questions – What is gravity? Does quantum mechani…

The Idea of the Brain: Matthew Cobb *****

Matthew Cobb is one of those people that you can’t help but admire but also secretly hate just a little bit for being so awesome. He is professor for zoology at the University of Manchester with a sizable teaching load that he apparently masters with consummate skill. He’s a scientific researcher, who researches the sense of smell of fruit fly maggots; I kid you not!  He’s also an attentive and loving family father but he still finds time and energy to write brilliant history of science books, three to date. His first, The Egg and Sperm Race, describes the search for the secret of human reproduction in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and is one of my favourite history of science books, on the period. His second, Life’s Greatest Secret is a monster, both in scope and detail, description of the hunt to decipher the structure and function of DNA that along the way demolishes a whole boatload of modern history of science myths. The most recent, and the subject of this review, is

The Big Ideas in Science - Jon Evans ***

The starting point of a review like this has to be to congratulate the author on his achievement, Jon Evans, because getting all of science into one relatively short book is a massive (and thankless) task. Although inevitably the result is a fairly hectic dash through the material, with limited space for subtleness, Evans manages to make the experience readable and has a light touch that is effective without becoming too simplistic.

There is only one reason this book doesn't get four stars - it's not the quality of the writing but rather the selection of the contents. Of course, there is bound to be plenty of stuff missed out - how else could you get all of science into 269 pages? But the balance is strangely skewed. Chemistry is pretty much omitted, though aspects of chemistry occur under other headings. But for me, the real problem is that physics is really under-represented. It's interesting to use Jim Al-Khalili's recent excellent physics summary title The World Acc…