Re: Peroidic Table (was exclusion principle which was electrons)

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

        OK.  I'm  not sure that i understand what the question is, but I
think that the answer is:  the model you are justified in advocating
depends upon the amount of experimental data that you want the model to
predict (or postdict? or explain?).

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, J. Green wrote:

> >         Thanks, Josh, whether or not you intended this exercise.
>
> Thank you.  I think this is partially what I intended.  Mostly I wanted to
> get a picture of what I presumed was something we don't really have a
> picture of.  The discussion thus far has been very benificial.
>
> > You have sugggested an alternative explanation of the periodic table.
>
> Merely for completeness:
>
> I just wanted it to be known that I do not believe that the periodic table
> can be entirely based on proton count (which I do believe holds more
> explaination for the differenced between elements than any other factor).
> The other factor is how those protons attract electrons.  I would like to
> reference my post to a previous question about the structure of the periodic
> table:
>
>
> The periodic table is made of rows and columns.  They both indicate electron
> shell configurations.  The first row has two elements in it, for the first
> orbital that has two electrons.  The split between the atoms on the right
> and the left are a result of the convention to place the elements with one
> electron in it's valence shell on the left, and elements with full outer
> shells on the right.  Since the second set of elements deals with the next
> shell, the next row has 8 elements, and this time, the split is because of
> the two sub-shells involved, 2s on the left, and 2p on the right.  The rest
> of the table follows basically that pattern.
>
> But at this point I would like to emphasize how my explaination of the
> periodic table is organized by electron shell filling order and that the
> number of electrons is based on the number of protons (in an neutral atom).
> I readily admit there are other explanations for the periodic table, or even
> other periodic tables for that matter (conical in structure, for example).
> This is merely the one that I prefer at this time.  I am open to other
> explanations, if they make more sense to me.
>
> Josh

--
"Don't push the river, it flows by itself"
                                Frederick Perls