|
|
Why The Periodic Schemata of the Elements
The most obvious reason for creating a distinct periodic table is that held by almost all chemists and physicists ---and, especially by high-school students of chemistry and physics. The conventional periodic table of the elements just looks bad. On the one hand, and these were my complaints as a young student, they teach us that the elements follow a progression in numbers (the aufbau), where each element reflects a progressive increment of a single proton and a single electron. This progression in atomic numbers (a protonic and an electronic number), based mainly upon the electronic configuration of the elements determines the characteristics and properties of the elements.
The increment in the protonic number is emphasized for the presentation of each distinctive element. The increment in electronic number is emphasized for the presentation of the electronic configuration of each element. Yet, on the periodic table, one receives the impression that each element derives after the previous one with an increment of one (in atomic number), when actually the increment for each element is two: one proton and one electron. Yet, the increment of two is hardly ever, if ever, emphasized in the textbooks of chemistry an physics.
Where does that leave the shunned neutron? Well, without getting back into the theme of the neutron, nobody really even talks much about the number of neutronic increments from one element to the next. In fact, almost every traditional periodic table of the elements simply ignores the neutron count, with all emphasis falling upon the electronic configuration.
But, the main point here is that the traditional periodic table conveys some glaringly wrong ideas about the nature of the composition of the elements. This becomes even more evident when, as a youngster I would look at the table and attempt to accommodate all of these seemingly illogical points in my head. On the one hand, the teachers would teach me about the progressive singular increment of one in the atomic number. Then, they would hold up the dismembered format of the old periodic table of the elements where a bunch of the elements were placed below the main body of the elements.
The idea of a straight forward, singular progression in atomic number was then presented in a broken-down fashion with the sequential numeration placed in separate blocks of elements. That would cause me to wonder and become impatient with the study of chemistry. On the one hand, we were told that whoever created the elements, used an increment-of-one (remember it is really 'two'), from one element to the next on the progression, and then interrupted that progression by placing all of those 'irregular' elements outside and below the table. Why would someone invent a progression (aufbau) and then interrupt it like that? To me, the periodic table made no sense, and in a sense, discouraged me from studying chemistry and physics any further when I was a youngster.
This same impression seems to have been received, and is still received today, by so many students. Whenever I present the schemata of the elements to teachers and professors today, their initial reaction is to verbalize their own misgivings about the conventional periodic table. Everyone seems to know that the traditional periodic table is "wrong" and deficient, but few have done anything about it. I can understand a chemist or a physicist not wanting to tackle the periodic table, because it has been relegated to the halls of high-school teaching (and learning), and seen to be a necessary evil at best. In fact, when I mention to a chemist or a physicist that I have created a new periodic table, their initial reaction comes in the form of a smug smile. Who in their right chemical or physical mind would even consider modifying the classic periodic table. This reflects the insignificance into which the conventional periodic table has fallen. It simply has become irrelevant.
No one looks towards the periodic table for producing new knowledge. Few view the periodic table as an instrument of prediction. There have been some weak attempts at creating a new periodic table. But, that is the problem. There is no such thing as "a" periodic table. Creating another one simply repeats the error of the first one. Periodicity is one characteristic or feature of the elements. There is an infinite array of other properties of the elements. We do not need another periodic table. We need a schematic design of the elements that will allow us to visualize the characteristics and properties of the elements as they exist. In this, there is no singular periodic table, but rather an infinite number of presentations, very much in the manner as the schemata have taught me.
By creating a schematic format that respects the sequential numerical progression, the schemata present patterns of symmetry in the behavior of the elements that are simply unavailable on the traditional periodic table. The dismembered format of the conventional periodic table denies any access to these patterns and their visual renderings. The elements exist like a single entity, where one must visualize them from beginning to end (even though we may not know their beginning or their supposed end yet).
The schematic design reveals that the elements reflect changes along their arrays in a wave-like fashion, where the numbers that represent specific data characteristics of the elements, reveal increments and decrements within the symmetry (or asymmetry). The schemata show us planar symmetries that involve all of the elements; translation and reflection symmetries along specific arrays; and centro-symmetries involving any of the former. These symmetries among the numbers corresponding to the elements do not appear in any textbook or handbook of chemistry and physics.
Now, much of this is due also to the fact that the data corresponding to the characteristics and properties of the elements are generally presented according to lists of elements according to their accidentally historical names, often by the random alphabetical names of the elements. The accidental naming of the elements cannot possibly serve as a manner for scientifically listing the order and category of properties of the elements. But, this is what almost all textbooks and handbooks on chemistry and physics do; they simply list the data of the elements by the order of their alphabetical names. This breaks down or mixes up all the data; thereby denying any possibility of viewing any of the symmetries being reflected by the behavior of the elements.
So, take a dismembered periodic table, with huge interruptions within the numerical sequential order of the atomic numbers; couple that with alphabetical lists of data corresponding to the elements (instead of listing the data according to atomic number); and, there you have it. A denial of rendering any of the significant patterns of symmetry (and asymmetry) of the elements for the past one hundred and fifty years or more in the chemical and physical research of the elements.
The schemata of the elements fulfill many needs, but a main one is to respect the order of the atomic number of the elements. Avoid conceptualizing the elements as of their alphabetically listed names. Think the elements as of quantitative number; and, then all of the qualitative characteristics may begin to make more sense.
I am not going to tell you how the ancient reckoning system played a role in creating the format for the electronic schemata, which were the first ones developed in this project. (Much less can I go into its relationship to the new neutronic schemata.) That may beleaguer your will to listen. But, the schematic format of the electronic schemata portray much smaller gaps among the elements that the dismembered gaps of the traditional periodic table. The huge gaps among the first twenty representative elements on the conventional periodic table are overcome on the schemata (both on the electronic and the neutronic schemata).
And, on the electronic schemata, finally, the concept of periodicity takes on a proportional rendering that is not achieved on the traditional table. The very concept that defines the traditional table, that of 'periodicity', is not even rendered effectively on the old table. For there is no proportional spacing between the elements and their corresponding periods as is achieved on the schemata. So, one must note that even the defining concept of periodicity is not rendered faithfully on the old periodic table.
Further negative points derived from all of these deficiencies of the old table are far too many to talk about in our story. Anyway, almost every chemist and physicist knows first hand what those shortcomings are; we need not repeat them here. The main point to realize at this stage, is that once we have rearranged the presentation of the elements into a sequential order, then the corresponding data of the properties of the elements shall more faithfully reflect the behavior of the elements and their interrelationships. In that manner, the patterns of symmetry and asymmetry shall make their appearance, as they have within the schemata of the elements.
And, this has little or nothing to do with our knowledge about the chemical and physical properties of the elements. Remember, and I know you will not forget this point, I am neither a chemist nor a physicist. I studied sociology and political science and art. Once the format of the schemata is achieved (in either its electronic or neutronic versions), then all that need be done is transfer the existing chemical and physical data onto those formats and watch the patterns appear.
We color-coded many different aspects of the characteristics and properties of the elements, be these qualitative or quantitative aspects, and then transferred those colors onto the sectors of the elements on the schemata. With that, all kinds of patterns of symmetry make their appearance. One does not really have to know much about chemistry and physics to know how to read the patterns. If a color is out of place (and this has happened to me), then one may suspect that an error was made in transferring the colors onto the schemata. And, that is generally what happens. All of the so-called irregular elements cited by the traditionalists actually obey patterns of symmetry; in other words, there is nothing irregular about the so-called irregular elements. Their patterns are predictable.
The problem in not seeing these patterns of symmetry accrues from the dismembered format of the traditional table and the alphabetical lists of the elements. The schemata are self-correcting in that sense. If a color-coding is out of place, this will become noticeable immediately. I generally check my original data and find that I made an error in transferring the data. I correct the color-coding, and then the pattern of symmetry appears as it exists in nature, in matter-energy.
From the distinct electronic and neutronic schemata, it has become evident to me that there is no such thing really as "regular" and "irregular" elements. Chemists and physicists have simply not understood what are the determining patterns of symmetry within the elements. The wrong ruler has been employed for measuring the so-called irregular elements. Once the correct ruler is found, then all those so-called irregularities become quite regular; so much so, that one may predict once again how the behavior of the elements shall occur.
The traditional periodic table lost its capability of offering predictability in the analyses. That is probably one of the main reasons that chemists and physicists have given up on the periodic table; it is next to impossible to extrapolate knowledge onto the traditional table. With the schemata, the story changes. Given the fact that the elements are behaving in determinant ways, and the color-coding of the incremental/decremental progressions in the data sets become easily perceived, then, one can make judgment calls as to which direction the data are moving.
This is where the schemata become significant, not just to me as an exercise in my experiences at self-teaching, but for others. I can only imagine what the potential and possible significance of the schematic design may be for chemists and physicists. They have all of the knowledge and data that are relevant to the behavior of the elements. I have simply taken their data and their knowledge and organized them into a more systematic presentation, one that respects the behavior of the elements.
When I take data from a handbook on chemistry or physics, and transfer that data onto the schematic design, be it on the electronic or the neutronic schemata, I literally marvel at viewing the newfound patterns of symmetry. When I see the chemists and physicists stating that the data do not reveal any patterns, and yet I am seeing the patterns on the schemata, well, the feeling is enlightening. I want to go out and shout about it; but, really, no one is listening. Sure, people are visiting my web-site and every now and then someone will write to me and express a positive opinion about the schemata (just as someone else will say something negative), but really no one is listening.
The case may be that I have been unable to find that special person or group of researchers who will recognize the significance of having the elements ordered by their atomic number and consider their properties and behavior as of those numbers and the corresponding elemental data.
It were as though everyone is saying that it is not only correct, but necessary to continue considering the elements as of their alphabetical names. Some elements have a common name (gold, silver, tin). Some are named after a country or a continent (Polonium and Europium). And, many others are named after persons (Einsteinium and Lawrencium). These are all historically accidental names. But, the reason why these names are employed to list the elements in alphabetical order of their names, violating the sequential numerical order of atomic number, somehow escapes me.
Such great care is taken by both chemists and physicists in being extremely exact in their data; the lay-person marvels at the scientific notation of numbers in science. Yet, all of that care is thrown out the window by historical tradition. Ultimately, knowledge is denied. Obviously, one wants to pay homage to the common names, to the individuals and countries that have been decisive in the production of knowledge. But, this should not occur at the expense of the knowledge itself.
One of the marvels of the Twentieth Century is the coming to the end of this custom of paying homage to the discoverers of the elements. The names of the elements finally were displaced (temporarily anyway) with the Latin symbolism (and names) for the atomic numbers of the elements. This temporary practice may point us in the direction of recognizing the significance of atomic number in the elements. We need to present the elements not with their accidental names, nor with their Latin versions of atomic number, but simply with their numbers. Atomic number is atomic number is atomic number.
What is, simply is. We do not really need to go back to Latin, or any other language. One may simply state in one's own language the number. Period. Punto. But, since one often relates number with numerology, for some reason, the recognition of atomic number (and the number of neutrons within each element), has not been foremost in the minds of many chemists and physicists. Yet, as the schemata show, it is necessary to relate the atomic number to the data sets about the characteristics and properties of each element. For example, when we divide the protonic number by the corresponding number of neutrons in each element, a progression makes its appearance that reflects the baseline of the first twenty elements in relation to the remaining elements that follow. The incremental/decremental progression of numbers produced by this division actually confirms the significance of the neutronic schematic design. Yet, such a simple division has not been carried out with the subsequent recognition as done with the schemata.
Only recently the significance of the neutron has become paramount within certain fields of physics. Yet, the baseline of the first twenty elements based upon the neutronic schemata has not received sufficient recognition. The very concept of nucleonic equilibrium produced within the schemata has not even appeared in the literature. The fact that nine of the first twenty elements share an equality of protonic/neutronic/electronic numbers has received no special attention, as shown in the schemata. The reasons may be simple: we think letters, symbols and alphabetically when we think about the elements, when we must be thinking numerically.
Somewhere along the way, within certain fields of scientific endeavor, the numbers have gotten lost. Letters and symbols have nudged their way into higher math with such a vengeance, that numbers themselves have been almost forgotten. The ancient idea that "everything is number" has been replaced by "number is too simple". E = mc2 is a classical case in point. No one doubts the possibility of squaring the velocity of light...when light can only travel at its own speed; never at its square ---that we know of. So, symbolic convention would have it that we can accept the mystical idea that the speed of light (2.99792458) can be squared ( c2 ), when in fact this latter numerical expression never exists, ever, again, as far as we know. Nobody can actually square the speed of light; yet as an analytical convention, physicists do it all the time.
If physicists can square the speed of light with the stroke of a pen, then chemists can mentally relate people and countries together in a heartbeat; like Einsteinium and Polonium. But, now ask yourself what do 99 and 84 have to do with one another; that is an entirely distinct venue of inquiry that only an uninterrupted design like the schemata can hope to answer.
The work of the schemata shall begin when the chemists and physicists come to realize the significance of number in relation to the elements. That was what appears to have happened with quantum physics. But, what stumps me, is why did they not proceed to carry over into elemental physics those same conventions. It would appear as though the pre-conceived ideas about the periodic table were far too ingrained to allow for any serious questioning in this regard. And, it would appear that most chemists and physicists simply did their chemistry and physics without worrying too much about the periodic table.
And, since no one seems to be really taken by the periodic table that exists, this may explain why no one is really enthusiastic about the schemata of the elements. I am enthusiastic because I have witnessed its potential. It has allowed me, a person who knows little or nothing about chemistry and physics (only what I have been able to teach myself), to suspect a tremendous potential for the schemata. Things that were unclear to me on the old table have been clarified to me by the schemata. I can only imagine what the potential for the schemata may be for someone who really knows a lot about chemistry and physics.
When I examine the patterns of symmetry of the elements on the schemata, I think to myself that possibly therein lies the cure for cancer, or something highly significant like that, for all humankind. I do not have the ability to see any of that. But, maybe someone who has dedicated their life to studying cancer or something highly significant like that will see in the schemata a venue of inquiry that may open up such a possibility for human beings on Earth.
I was blown away by the patterns of symmetry on the electronic schemata. But, when the idea appeared on the electronic schemata that there was such a thing as neutronic schemata and nucleonic equilibrium, and that these were determinant or determined by neutronic periodicity, well, I was blown away to the Nth degree. It makes sense. The atom consists of not only protons and electrons, but of neutrons. For chemists and physicists to have stated for so many decades that the electronic configuration solely determines the characteristics and properties of the elements is a limited view of matter-energy. The conditions of existence of the atom are protons, neutrons and electrons (as far as chemists and physicists know)...whatever those constituent elements may be. So, it is logical that the neutrons contribute to determining what they are! To have designed and employed a periodic table that has emphasized only the proton and the electron (and deficiently as we have explained), falls short of the scientific mark of exactness.
The creation of neutronic schemata (similarly, a neutronic periodic table) is logical and in keeping with chemical and physical knowledge about the elements. Nuecleonic equilibrium and neutronic periodicity also determine specific characteristics and properties of the elements. But, since chemists and physicists have never considered such a possibility until the coming of neutron physics, the periodic table has pretty much remained traditional discourse.
The fact that the neutron count is not so predictable as the electron count, and there is no apparent periodicity, given the manipulation of isotopes based on the varying neutron count, well, this and more has evidently discouraged anyone from tackling the concepts of neutronic periodicity and/or nucleonic equilibrium. But, since I am not a chemist or a physicist, then I move outside the boundaries of traditional inquiry. It is like what my Uncle Juan, a studied artist, once told me about my drawings many years ago: "the good thing about your art, Charles, is that you do not know what you are not supposed to do". That's one good thing about self-taught knowlegde: we do not pay attention to what others tell us we cannot do or are not supposed to do.
I did not know that you are not supposed to create the concept of "neutronic periodicity". This is a turn-off for any chemist or physicist. But, fortunately, reality does not listen to some of the scholars either and simply goes on about its business. The neutron count reflects a periodicity in incremental/decremental progressions, which must be accounted for; and both the electronic and the neutronic schemata account for these increments/decrements. Electronic configuration and periodicity, an increment of one for each element, is relatively more easy to conceive than the incremental features of the neutron count. This may explain why no one has proposed the concept of neutronic periodicity; it appears to be more irregular than regular. Yet, once we translate the neutron count onto the schemata, a high degree of predictability makes its appearance. The incremental/decremantal tendencies of the neutron count appear to be almost as regular as the electron count. But, the variations in the numbers do discourage the time-consuming effort of analyzing their increments and/or decrements.
In all of these matters of chemistry and physics, I work at the level of suspicions. I suspect a lot of things; that there is logic to the numbers behind all the chemical and physical data. We may not perceive fully this particular logic as it exists, but the numbers are assisting us in the search. Astronomers use elemental analysis as well for their studies. They may not depend upon the periodic table as much as the chemists and physicists, but it is a close race. But, if the ancients studied the sky and came up with numbers for cyclical counts that are similar to those we employ today, there should be no surprise. The same sky analyzed by different people at different times should produce the same (or at least, similar) numbers ---if their apprehensions were exact. Our surprise is mainly manifested in wondering how the ancients achieved their numbers with the naked eye, when we need huge telescopes, even radio telescopes for some numbers.
The ancients counted time; we still count time today. Why should their numbers be any different from ours, if we are all counting the same/similar time events. There is no reason, other than supposition. If space and time are one and the same, spacetime, then the numbers of one (time) shall correspond to the numbers of the other (space). If all spacetime is related, then the numbers of one spacetime event shall correspond and relate to the numbers of all other spacetime events. So, if the ancients counted time correctly, then the fact that their time-numbers correspond to our numbers about space should come as no surprise.
If the elements exist as protons/neutrons/electrons, then the numbers of electronic configuration (motion) and periodicity (time) should correspond to those of neutronic configuration (motion) and periodicity (time). If every event exists in relation to all other events, as they do in matter-energy, then the fact that the protonic and electronic counts relate directly to the numbers of the neutronic count should come as no surprise. Quite the opposite; we should be expecting a correspondence of number.
If we (find or) assign a periodicity to the electronic configuration, then, we should find no surprise in discovering a periodicity of the neutron count. The neutron count is not a single fixed number for each element, but reflects increments and decrements, depending upon the direction of the analysis. Scientists only acknowledge electronic periods; not protonic or neutronic periods. Yet, everything exists in time, as time (as periods in time). One must know the time coordinates of the proton and the neutron; it is impossible to conceive (though not impossible to state) that only the electron reflects periods.
With the schemata of the elements, we are simply acknowledging and pointing out the spacetime/movement coordinates of all elemental events. Every event that exists in spacetime reflects its conditions of existence, which are space, time and motion. By linking the elemental sectors on the schemata, we can now view the spacetime/movement coordinates of each particular elemental event at any level/aspect, time/process, and/or relation/system. The schemata may have their elemental sectors corresponding to each of the elements scrolled or wrapped around by rows or columns in a search for patterns of symmetry (and asymmetry).
There is no single periodic table. No such thing exists. What exists is a symbolic representation of the elements and their data sets in a sequentially numerical progression that accounts for all aspects/levels, moments/processes, and, relations/systems of each element in and of itself and in relation to all other events (elements). There is no single schema. What exist are infinite arrays of schemata of the elements. I have been able to transfer a limited amount of data onto the schemata, and this has produced thousands of schemata that reflect many more patterns of symmetry and asymmetry.
There are millions more; an infinite number of schemata that are waiting to be activated by transferring data sets onto the electronic and/or neutronic schemata. It is impossible for a single individual to effect this task. And, it is even impossible for all of us to do this at this given moment. Because the schemata develop as the data sets are discovered; new data require new schemata. Just as the process of the discovery of knowledge is unending, so the deriving of schemata of the elements becomes unending.
What is significant is that we now know how to arrange the data sets of the elements in such a manner that shall allow the rendering of certain patterns of symmetry in their behavior. Each schema is valid in and of the data that it reflects exactly. Even the old periodic tables are reflective of knowledge inasmuch as they reflect the data exactly. But, the fact that we have overcome the dismemberment of the traditional periodic table with the electronic and neutronic schemata now allows us to consider patterns of symmetry that have been denied until now.
As I developed the schemata, the idea kept coming to me, "when would I finish the book on the schemata". It is impossible to finish. The schemata show me that their dynamics are in relation to the creation of chemical and physical data sets. As long as we continue to produce new knowledge about the elements, new schemata are required to convey that knowledge, process it and produce the corresponding patterns of symmetry. There is no single periodic table; there is no single schema. There is only the possibility of producing an infinite array of schemata of the elements, just as the relationships of the elements are themselves infinite.