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

The AI Delusion - Gary Smith *****

This is a very important little book ('little' isn't derogatory - it's just quite short and in a small format) - it gets to the heart of the problem with applying artificial intelligence techniques to large amounts of data and thinking that somehow this will result in wisdom.

Gary Smith as an economics professor who teaches statistics, understands numbers and, despite being a self-confessed computer addict, is well aware of the limitations of computer algorithms and big data. What he makes clear here is that we forget at our peril that computers do not understand the data that they process, and as a result are very susceptible to GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. Yet we are increasingly dependent on computer-made decisions coming out of black box algorithms which mine vast quantities of data to find correlations and use these to make predictions. What's wrong with this? We don't know how the algorithms are making their predictions - and the algorithms don't kn…

Infinity in the Palm of your Hand - Marcus Chown *****

A new Marcus Chown book is always a treat - and this is like a box of chocolates: a collection of bite-sized delights as Chown presents us with 50 science facts that are strange and wonderful.

The title is a quote from William Blake's Auguries of Innocence: 'To see a World in a Grain of Sand, / And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, / Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand, / And Eternity in an hour.' It would seem particularly appropriate if this book were read on a mobile phone (so it would be literally in the palm), which could well be true for ebook users, as the short essays make excellent reading for a commute, or at bedtime. I found them distinctly moreish - making it difficult to put the book down as I read just one more. And perhaps another. Oh, and that next one looks really interesting...

Each of the 50 pieces has a title and a short introductory heading, which mostly give a feel for the topic. The very first of these, however, briefly baffled me: 'You are a third mus…

How to Invent Everything - Ryan North ****

Occasionally you read a book and think 'I wish I'd thought of that.' This was my immediate reaction to Ryan North's How to Invent Everything. The central conceit manages to be both funny and inspiring as a framework for writing an 'everything you ever wanted to know about everything (and particularly science)' book.

What How to Invent Everything claims to be is a manual for users of a time machine (from some point in the future). Specifically it's a manual for dealing with the situation of the time machine going wrong and stranding the user in the past. At first it appears that it's going to tell you how to fix the broken time machine - but then admits this is impossible. Since you're stuck in the past, you might as well make the best of your surroundings, so the aim of the rest of the book is to give you the knowledge you need to build your own civilisation from scratch.

We start with a fun flow chart for working out just how far back in time you are…