Edont Knoff
Registered Senior Member
You can do a lot of calculations based on the electron configuration of an element. I don't know how much is known abou that though, for the new transuranic elements.
Four New Elements?
- Thread starter Beer w/Straw
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Well we know the electronic configuration of them, surely? You just apply the Aufbau principle, don't you?
Edont Knoff
Registered Senior Member
Actually I know too little about it to give answers here. I just know that lately (many ?) chemical reactions could be calculated very precisely for the well known elements, but if we know enough about the new transuranic elements, I don't know.
I've read that in some cases the analysis of the elements was very tricky, because the single atoms cracked up in fractions of seconds already again. None of them had complete/regular electron configurations for study.
The process of fusing heavy cores with force produces highly excited cores and it is very hard to make measurements of them. E.g. the cores are not "round" when created, but need to undergo several reorganizations to become a "normal" core, and the irragularly shaped cores have at different physical properties than less excited cores. So values like density, melting point, vaporization energy and such are mostly unknown for the elements. But that's all physics ...
Maybe someone else can shed a better light on the question. I just wanted to second the point that if the electron configuration is known, science meanwhile has solutions to calculate the behaviour of the elements in chemical reaction.
My chemistry knowledge is at least 20 years old, though, I haven't been active in the field since then.
PS: Yes, if we assume there isn't something surprisingly new happening with an element once it crosses a yet unknown border undergoing unknown changes, the Aufbau principle will tell. We just can't be 100% sure, unless experiments can confirm the predictions.
I've read that in some cases the analysis of the elements was very tricky, because the single atoms cracked up in fractions of seconds already again. None of them had complete/regular electron configurations for study.
The process of fusing heavy cores with force produces highly excited cores and it is very hard to make measurements of them. E.g. the cores are not "round" when created, but need to undergo several reorganizations to become a "normal" core, and the irragularly shaped cores have at different physical properties than less excited cores. So values like density, melting point, vaporization energy and such are mostly unknown for the elements. But that's all physics ...
Maybe someone else can shed a better light on the question. I just wanted to second the point that if the electron configuration is known, science meanwhile has solutions to calculate the behaviour of the elements in chemical reaction.
My chemistry knowledge is at least 20 years old, though, I haven't been active in the field since then.
PS: Yes, if we assume there isn't something surprisingly new happening with an element once it crosses a yet unknown border undergoing unknown changes, the Aufbau principle will tell. We just can't be 100% sure, unless experiments can confirm the predictions.
Edont Knoff
Registered Senior Member
I've been googling a bit and the german Wikipedia page list some elements that do not comply fully to the Aufbau principle, because of inter-electron and relativistic effects:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufbauprinzip
The English page does not have the table of exceptions ... don't ask me about the credibility of Wikipedia ...
Knowing the electron configurations become increasingly complex as the proton count of the core grows, I am suspicious if the predictions are good enough to tell about the chemical properties of the new elements. The other thing that makes me doubtful is the fact that these big cores are seldom really round, but egg-shaped, and I suspect this will also influence the energy niveaus of the electron hull. Just guessing on that one, though.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufbauprinzip
The English page does not have the table of exceptions ... don't ask me about the credibility of Wikipedia ...
Knowing the electron configurations become increasingly complex as the proton count of the core grows, I am suspicious if the predictions are good enough to tell about the chemical properties of the new elements. The other thing that makes me doubtful is the fact that these big cores are seldom really round, but egg-shaped, and I suspect this will also influence the energy niveaus of the electron hull. Just guessing on that one, though.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You are right, it is true that the order of filling subshells is sometimes not exactly as expected, due to differential shielding and so on - and no doubt the relative magnitude of such effects will be greatest for atoms of high atomic number. But there are predicted configurations for these elements, for example here: http://www.ptable.com
By the way I noticed "niveau" in your last post. Are you a French speaker?
Edont Knoff
Registered Senior Member
German. We borrowed some French words in the past, when French was trendy. These days we borrow more English words. I must admit though, that I'm not used to scientific English and just can hope that the meaning comes through, even if the words are not quite correct. Let me offer you the level in exchange for the niveau
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
German. We borrowed some French words in the past, when French was trendy. These days we borrow more English words. I must admit though, that I'm not used to scientific English and just can hope that the meaning comes through, even if the words are not quite correct. Let me offer you the level in exchange for the niveau
Your English is almost flawless. I have some French (not as good as your English by any means) but no German, I regret to say.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And you're welcome to it. In the appropriate forum. This is not it.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You misunderstand my use of the term *function*, in spite of the links I provided. I don't believe I said that chemical elements are functions in and of themselves. However, some elements clearly have mathematically functional relationships, such as when forming chemical compounds.
Chemical elements (atoms) are mathematical *constructs*. They are created via mathematical laws or functions of the 4 fundamental universal forces which produce physical reality.
Chemical compounds are mathematical constructs through the *bonding* function.
Sounds very mathematical to me.
I see *chemistry* as a mathematical discipline and chemistry functions in accordance with mathematical laws of chemistry.
Am I wrong in this? As an ex-accountant, I see a clear relationship between chemistry and mathematics, but then I stipulate that I am not a chemist.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Which you then use to justify a philosophical viewpoint that is not appropriate here.
It doesn't matter what you believe about it; this is about chemistry, not about functions of the universe.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It's elemental, dear Watson.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
What ev. It doesn't belong here. You've squandered peoples' time.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You misunderstand my use of the term *function*, in spite of the links I provided. I don't believe I said that chemical elements are functions in and of themselves. However, some elements clearly have mathematically functional relationships, such as when forming chemical compounds.
Chemical elements (atoms) are mathematical *constructs*. They are created via mathematical laws or functions of the 4 fundamental universal forces which produce physical reality.
Chemical compounds are mathematical constructs through the *bonding* function.
Sounds very mathematical to me.
I see *chemistry* as a mathematical discipline and chemistry functions in accordance with mathematical laws of chemistry.
Am I wrong in this? As an ex-accountant, I see a clear relationship between chemistry and mathematics, but then I stipulate that I am not a chemist.
Listen, you said the following at the start of all this: "Even though they are theoretically possible as an atomic structure, perhaps they cannot fulfill a necessary function and never gain existence as part of the stuff of the universe?"
So you were using "function" in the sense of purpose or role, and hypothesising that the absence of a "necessary function", i.e. a role or purpose, for these elements was the reason why they did not exist in nature.
Neither of us was talking about mathematical "functions", which are something else entirely and a complete red herring. So all this guff you are now producing about mathematics and chemistry is beside the point.
What I take issue with is your idea that things have to have a "necessary function" in order to exist. There is no basis in science for this idea and, as I have already pointed out, the instability of theses transuranic elements can be accounted for quite well without resorting to such metaphysics.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
TY, at least we have cleared this allegation of *religiosity* .
I am still working on "necessity and sufficiency". If I find something interesting , I'll start a new thread.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No we haven't really, because this teleological notion of "necessary function" you seem to have for the universe - or its ingredients - ascribes purpose or design.
Was so getting comfortable with just lurking at SF, but this one I could not resist......
Intellectual pygmies, worthless nobodies and irrelevant p**s-ants ought to tread very, very carefully in dismissing what one, perhaps hyper-intelligent member/entity (with maybe Cosmic-level clearance status!) here at SF has sort-of disclosed in the past: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...ravitational-waves.149731/page-2#post-3306063
Strange indeed that said hyper-intelligent entity is evidently coy of enthusiastically joining in here. Gee, why would that be?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I won't argue semantics, and perhaps I did not make it clear that I used those terms only in a mathematical context, not in context of metaphysical purpose or design. But I won't get into that here. As was pointed out this is a thread on Chemistry. I'll respect that.
Last edited: