Online research in philosophy

The purpose of this paper is to propose a new design for the presentation of the periodic system of the elements. It is a system that highlights the fundamental importance of elements as basic substances rather than elements as simple substances. Furthermore the fundamental nature of atomic number triads of elements is put to use in obtaining a new perfect triad by relocating hydrogen among the halogens to give the triad H, F, Cl. An unexpected regularity in the period lengths of successive rows is obtained on rearranging the table to start with the halogens on the left-hand side. The relative virtues of this table, as compared with the medium-long form and the left-step table, are discussed.

In this paper, I explore a seldom-recognized connection between the ontology of abstract objects and a current issue in the philosophy of chemistry. Specifically, I argue that realism with regard to universals implies a view of chemical elements similar to F.A. Paneth’s thesis about the dual nature of the concept of element.

Some recent work in mathematical chemistry is discussed. It is claimed that quantum mechanics does not provide a conclusive means of classifying certain elements like hydrogen and helium into their appropriate groups. An alternative approach using atomic number triads is proposed and the validity of this approach is defended in the light of some predictions made via an information theoretic approach that suggests a connection between nuclear structure and electronic structure of atoms.

I present a response to Vollmer's review of the book Of Minds and Molecules, and especially her comments on my own article therein. This provides an opportunity to discuss two central ideas in the philosophy of chemistry. These are the distinction between elements as simple substances (element-1) and elements as basic substances (element-2) and Paneth's proposed intermediate position for philosophy of chemistry. The response also discusses the question of isotopes in relationship to the nature of the elements and their classification as well as the philosophical status of atomic orbitals.

A modification of the regular medium-form periodic table is presented in which certain elements are placed in more than one position. H is included at the top of both the alkali metals and the halogens; He is above Be and above Ne. The column of noble gases is duplicated as Groups O and 18. The elements of the second and third periods are duplicated above the transition metals. This arrangement displays more patterns and connections between the elements than are seen in the regular format. It fits more facts and so gives better guidance to useful predictions.

Many different arguments have been put forward in order to assign the best place for a given element within Mendeleev's Table: its spectroscopy, its chemical activity, the crystalline structure of its solid state, etc. We here propose another criterion; the nature of the few body corrections to the pairwise additive energy. This argument is used here to address a question often brought forward by Eric Scerri in Foundations of Chemistry, namely the rightful place of helium; either above the column of the alkaline earths (beryllium, etc.) or rather above the noble gas elements.

Abstract   This article considers two important traditions concerning the chemical elements. The first is the meaning of the term “element” including the distinctions between element as basic substance, as simple substance and as combined simple substance. In addition to briefly tracing the historical development of these distinctions, I make comments on the recent attempts to clarify the fundamental notion of element as basic substance for which I believe the term “element” is best reserved. This discussion has focused on the writings of Fritz Paneth which are here analyzed from a new perspective. The other tradition concerns the reduction of chemistry to quantum mechanics and an understanding of chemical elements through their microscopic components such as protons, neutrons and electrons. I claim that the use of electronic configurations has still not yet settled the question of the placement of several elements and discuss an alternative criterion based on maximizing triads of elements. I also point out another possible limitation to the reductive approach, namely the failure, up to now, to obtain a derivation of the Madelung rule. Mention is made of some recent similarity studies which could be used to clarify the nature of ‘elements’. Although it has been suggested that the notion of element as basic substance should be considered in terms of fundamental particles like protons and electrons, I resist this move and conclude that the quantum mechanical tradition has not had much impact on the question of what is an element which remains an essentially philosophical issue. Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-13 DOI 10.1007/s10698-011-9124-y Authors Eric R. Scerri, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA Journal Foundations of Chemistry Online ISSN 1572-8463 Print ISSN 1386-4238.

Although the periodic system of elements is central to the study of chemistry and has been influential in the development of quantum theory and quantum mechanics, its study has been largely neglected in philosophy of science. The present article is a detailed criticism of one notable exception, an attempt by Hettema and Kuipers to axiomatize the periodic table and to discuss the reduction of chemistry in this context.

The recent exchange on the quantum justification of the Periodic System of the Elements in this Journal between Scerri [Foundations of Chemistry 6: 93–116, 2004] and Friedrich [Foundations of Chemistry 6: 117–132, 2004] is supplemented by some methodological comments.