It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Periodic Table of Elements Wrong?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Sure looks like it based on newest information being released:


You know the periodic table that hung on the wall of every science class you took at school? As of today, it’s wrong. Or more precisely, it's inaccurate.

One of the biggest changes in decades is set to be made to the periodic table, with the atomic weight of 10 elements altered to better reflect how they occur in nature.

For more than a century, scientists have assigned a standard single value to the atomic weights of elements. Now they say those numbers aren't as static as first believed.

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) has decided that the weights of 10 elements will now be expressed as ranges instead of a single value, with an upper and lower limit.

The elements are hydrogen, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, sulphur, chlorine and thallium.


Source

This has some pretty big implications... everything from elementary class rooms to particle physics to drug testing will be impacted by this. I certainly see the benefit of this, but why not just start a "new" table that incorporates some of the newer findings? It seems like changing the existing one will just make more work....

Thoughts?

~Namaste




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Yes, teaching elementary chemistry in classroom may get a little more difficult and some may have a harder time grasping the concept of varying weight as opposed to absolute weight, but in no way will this change anything for professionals who have always been aware of the different weights certain elements can appear in nature.

This update changes nothing for the scientists, but it will require many materials to be reprinted, as you noted.

Kharron



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
Sure looks like it based on newest information being released:


You know the periodic table that hung on the wall of every science class you took at school? As of today, it’s wrong. Or more precisely, it's inaccurate.

One of the biggest changes in decades is set to be made to the periodic table, with the atomic weight of 10 elements altered to better reflect how they occur in nature.

For more than a century, scientists have assigned a standard single value to the atomic weights of elements. Now they say those numbers aren't as static as first believed.

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) has decided that the weights of 10 elements will now be expressed as ranges instead of a single value, with an upper and lower limit.

The elements are hydrogen, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, sulphur, chlorine and thallium.


Source

This has some pretty big implications... everything from elementary class rooms to particle physics to drug testing will be impacted by this. I certainly see the benefit of this, but why not just start a "new" table that incorporates some of the newer findings? It seems like changing the existing one will just make more work....

Thoughts?

~Namaste



Starred and flagged.

I always wondered why the periodic table didn't also include the isotopes of say hydrogen atomic weight of 1, for example: deuterium atomic weight of two, and tritium atomic weight of three.

Giving atomic weight a range that includes the isotopes these elements makes a lot of sense.

This isn't a big a deal as it sounds, most texts also include beyond the "base" element its isotopes.

Still it makes sense, can't wait to get my hands on the updated PT!


edit on 16-12-2010 by mydarkpassenger because: S&F



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Kharron
 


Exactly...

And... (foil hat on).... the conspiracy side of me says that we are running out of ways to make more money, so reproducing printed material because it "has to be" seems like a novel approach to keeping a lot of people in business. If they knew this information for so long in the professional end of things, why wait until there is so much of the original (incorrect) information disseminated that the cost is many times more what it would have been if the changes were made when the information was first confirmed?

~Namaste



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


Apparently you don't know what "atomic weight" means.

It is only counting the number of protons. The neutrons do not add to atomic mass. Duh.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
A new table would be identical to the old table with the new mass range numbers. This won't effect most chemists but will be helpful to the analytical chemists using GC-MS and HRMS.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
reply to post by Kharron
 


Exactly...

And... (foil hat on).... the conspiracy side of me says that we are running out of ways to make more money, so reproducing printed material because it "has to be" seems like a novel approach to keeping a lot of people in business. If they knew this information for so long in the professional end of things, why wait until there is so much of the original (incorrect) information disseminated that the cost is many times more what it would have been if the changes were made when the information was first confirmed?

~Namaste




No conspiracy here. The table is simply being updated to include the weights of the basic element's isotopes, something that is taught routinely in every junior high school.

Regular old hydrogen has just one proton, deuterium has one proton and one neutron, tritium has one proton and two neutrons. The number of protons and neutrons added together equal an element or it's isotope's weight.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


Apparently you don't know what "atomic weight" means.

It is only counting the number of protons. The neutrons do not add to atomic mass. Duh.


The neutrons are counted in the mass. Atomic mass is a weighted average of the isotopic distribution of a given element. Proton count is "Atomic Number" which is an integer and determines the number of electrons that the atom has. This is important in the chemical behavior and is the basis for the table.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
reply to post by Kharron
 


Exactly...

And... (foil hat on).... the conspiracy side of me says that we are running out of ways to make more money, so reproducing printed material because it "has to be" seems like a novel approach to keeping a lot of people in business. If they knew this information for so long in the professional end of things, why wait until there is so much of the original (incorrect) information disseminated that the cost is many times more what it would have been if the changes were made when the information was first confirmed?

~Namaste




Oh trust me, I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, and I'm sure there are those who will make a buck on re-printing material, it's inevitable - but this is just normal practice.


Every time maps had to be re-printed when new land was discovered, cartographers made bank - they were probably wishing for an eighth continent.
Imagine the booming business of building globes once it was accepted that Earth was not flat.



Kharron
edit on 16-12-2010 by Kharron because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by Kharron because: typos



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
Apparently you don't know what "atomic weight" means.

It is only counting the number of protons. The neutrons do not add to atomic mass. Duh.


Actually, you are the one who doesn't appear to know what atomic mass is. The atomic mass is calculated by the total number of protons, electrons, and neutrons in an element. Therefore, the amount of neutrons in an atom definitely affects the atomic mass. Change the protons, and you are looking at a new element.

* Encyclopaedia Britannica - Atomic Mass



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kharron

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
reply to post by Kharron
 


Exactly...

And... (foil hat on).... the conspiracy side of me says that we are running out of ways to make more money, so reproducing printed material because it "has to be" seems like a novel approach to keeping a lot of people in business. If they knew this information for so long in the professional end of things, why wait until there is so much of the original (incorrect) information disseminated that the cost is many times more what it would have been if the changes were made when the information was first confirmed?

~Namaste




Oh trust me, I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, and I'm sure there are those who will make a buck on re-printing material, it's inevitable - but this is just a normal protocol.


Every time maps had to be re-printed when a new land was discovered, cartographers made bank - they were probably wishing for an eighth continent.
Imagine the booming business of building globes once it was accepted that Earth was not flat.



Kharron


Duly noted.


I always try to see every angle... that was just one of them.

All in all, I think this is a good step in the right direction. The time it takes for new research to be experimented, confirmed, published and propagated to the schools and people is far too long and when you look at schools today, most of the material is ancient. I hope trends like this continue for the sake of the people who are just coming to understand these subjects.

You're only as good as the tools you have, knowledge being one of them.


~Namaste



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


Apparently you don't know what "atomic weight" means.

It is only counting the number of protons. The neutrons do not add to atomic mass. Duh.


Apparently YOU are confusing Atomic Number with atomic weight.

Atomic number counts only the number of protons; all isotopes of hydrogen have the same atomic number, 1.

Atomic mass counts protons and neutrons.

www.ndt-ed.org... phy/atomicmassnumber.htm
edit on 16-12-2010 by mydarkpassenger because: speel



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
This story just highlights a common shortcoming of man: concrete thinking. Everything, in our minds, are absolutes. We have trouble thinking in the abstract, where and it shows in the seemingly horrible science scores (i think).

It is difficult for some folks to consider "probability" rather than specifics. Perhaps this will spur us to work on this skill with our younger minds?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
A new table would be identical to the old table with the new mass range numbers. This won't effect most chemists but will be helpful to the analytical chemists using GC-MS and HRMS.


I kinda find it an exciting idea (nerd) - it might be more easy to visualize new associations between elements and periodic groups.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I think you can just look at the Periodic Table of Elements and see that there's probably a better, more accurate way of representing the elements, and that some form of them are missing or as yet undetected. I keep thinking that it might be better to order them in a multi-dimensional matrix of some kind. Start with 3-D, and see if that helps illuminate where the missing pieces are. From there, we can begin to incorporate how the elements stand up along the axis of Time, and then we can perhaps start to find the bits and pieces that may only "partially exist" in our currently understood framework of reality but nevertheless are important building blocks for it.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


.... There aren't really any gaps. Changing the number of protons changes the element. We have every element possible until you start getting to the heavier atoms. You can change the number of neutrons - that creates isotopes, which are a world of funkiness beyond a table. You can change valence electrons and create ions - more familiar than isotopes, but still not really something you put on a table.

We've got every natural element there is, unless you want to start getting into "strange matter" and the idea of using particles that do not exist naturally on the planet (or anywhere else we are all that aware of). But that's not what the periodic table is about. It's about how matter reacts with matter - not how matter reacts with stuff that we can't yet even begin to model in theory.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I wonder....is this grounds to nullify my student loan? I mean, I took out loans to get educated in the sciences fields (which included chemistry). Now, with these changes, how will that affect my future hireability? Now, If employers are looking for graduates with this new understanding of the elements, then my degree was bogus; thus, I should not have to pay, no?

P.S., I'm sure my parents generation felt the same way about my generation. But, it does seem to be a valid argument (to me).
edit on 16-12-2010 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Some 3-d models are here.

These 3-d models are deep.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
The information in the OP is not suggesting that the periodic table of elements is wrong. On the table, the atomic weights are weighted averages of all the isotopes. (elements of the same type with differing numbers of neutrons, thus affecting mass) Thus, an element like hydrogen usually has one proton (and zero neutrons) but will very occasionally have a neutron, so it weighs more (this is called deuterium) or even two neutrons (this is called tritium). Since the 0 neutron form of hydrogen is by far the most common, the average weight of hydrogen is something like 1.01 when you factor in how rare the other kinds are.

What the original post is proposing is that instead of a fixed number like 1.01 on the periodic tables, that a range be given, like 1.005 to 1.015 (or whatever range they determined; I just pulled that range out of my butt as a hypothetical example).



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Haha, have you been to college recently? This practice is so wide spread in textbook writing that it sickens me. I've had to retake 2 classes that required a lab/lab manual (freshman year, too much drinking). One was a chemistry class and the other a geology class. For the chem class I had a lab manual that was already out of date the following semester. The only differences in the manual were a couple of new figures and they wanted me to buy another 30 dollar lab manual. I refused and still got an A. For the second class I used a lab manual from 1987 and the only thing it was missing was a map that was provided in class.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join