See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234225026

The Periodic Table and the Electron

Article  in  American Scientist · October 1997

DOI: 10.1142/9781848164260_0004

CITATIONS READS
37 1,247

1 author:

Eric Robert Scerri

University of California, Los Angeles
301 PUBLICATIONS   1,865 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Celebrating 150 years of Mendeleev's discovery and other chemistry blogs View project

A Tale of Seven Scientists and A New Philosophy of Science View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eric Robert Scerri on 16 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society

The Periodic Table and the Electron: Although electronic configurations are traditionally
invoked to explain the periodic system, their explanatory power remains only
approximate
Author(s): Eric R. Scerri
Source: American Scientist, Vol. 85, No. 6 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1997), pp. 546-553
Published by: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27856891
Accessed: 16-12-2017 01:48 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to American Scientist

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 16 Dec 2017 01:48:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Periodic Table and the Electron

Although electronic configurations are traditionally invoked to explain

the periodic system, their explanatory power remains only approximate

Eric R. Scerri

Eric Scerri studied chemistry at
the Universities of London,
Cambridge and Southampton,
and obtained a Ph.D. in the his
tory and philosophy of science
from King's College, London on
the question of "The Reduction
of Chemistry to Quantum Me
chanics." He has been a re
search fellow in the history and
philosophy of science at the
London School of Economics
and at the California Institute
of Technology. He is currently
an assistant professor of chem
istry at Bradley University,
where he also teaches history
and philosophy of chemistry,
which are also his main re
search interests. He is editor of
the new journal Foundations
of Chemistry. Address: De
partment of Chemistry, Bradley
University, Peoria, IL 61625.
Internet: scerri@bradley.edu.
546 American Scientist, Volume 85
T T Thomson's momentous discovery of the Prout's hypothesis that the atoms of all ele
J J electron 100 years ago this year is a story ments were composites of hydrogen. Further,
familiar to anyone who has enrolled in an un Mendeleev was particularly fond of emphasiz
dergraduate chemistry course. His experi ing that smooth curves should not be drawn
ments with cathode-ray tubes allowed him to through the points representing numerical
determine the charge-to-mass ratio of the elec data on the elements, since such curves would
tron?with a mass some 1,000 times less than imply continuity instead of strict individuality.
the smallest particle previously found?and to Mendeleev's reluctance toward reduction
establish that it was a component of all matter. was not widely shared. One of the codiscover
Thus Thomson earned a place in the annals of ers of the periodic system, the German Lothar
physics?and the honor of a centenary. We Meyer, accepted the possibility of primary mat
might also, however, take note of another con ter and supported Prout's hypothesis. He was
tribution Thomson made, one that is not so also happy to draw curves through numerical
widely known. data, including his famous plot of atomic vol
Thomson also had a deep interest in chemistry, umes that showed such remarkable periodicity
which motivated him, among other things, to put that it helped in the acceptance of the periodic
forward the first explanation in terms of electrons system. Nonetheless, prior to Thomson's dis
of the periodic table of the elements?that en covery of the electron, no accepted model of
during icon adorning the walls of chemistry lec atomic substructure existed to explain the peri
ture halls and laboratories throughout the world. odic system, and the matter was still very
Ninety years later, most chemists and physicists much in dispute.
continue to believe that the electron holds the key
to understanding the periodic table. Yet over the Magnets and Electrons
years, numerous versions of such explanations It took little time, however, for the newly dis
have come and gone, been adapted and adjusted, covered electron to begin featuring in several
and generally subjected to subtle manipulation to postulated models of the atom. In 1901 the
match experimental evidence. Despite such "evo Frenchman Jean Perrin suggested the first
lution/' however, I shall argue that the modern planetary conception of the atom, proposing
explanation as it is generally portrayed remains that each atom consisted of one or more highly
far from satisfactory. charged positive bodies, much like a positive
sun, around which small negative planets
The Genesis of the Table (electrons) were in orbit. He also thought that
To understand how the electron has been ap the total negative charge in the atom would be
plied to explanations of the periodic table we exactly equal to the total positive charge. These
must start with the discovery of the periodic views are in remarkable anticipation of present
system itself. The Russian chemist Dimitri views on the structure of the atom.
Mendeleev announced in 1869 that the proper In 1904 the Japanese physicist Hantaro Na
ties of elements arranged in order of increasing gaoka discussed what he called the Saturnian
atom, in which electrons orbited the atom in a
atomic weight appeared to repeat after certain
definite intervals. Yet even as this discovery be series of rings. That same year, J. J. Thomson
came increasingly well established, Mendeleev himself began to think about how the electrons
remained strongly opposed to any attempt to
might be arranged in the atom, suggesting that
reduce or explain the periodicity in terms of
atomic structure. He resisted the notion of any
they were embedded in the positive ^
me nucleus. This Conception Wcaxrve known as
form of primary matter, which was actively the "plum pudding" model of the atom. He
discussed by his contemporaries, and opposed also envisaged the electrons as circulating

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 16 Dec 2017 01:48:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Figure 1. Since J. J. Thomson's discovery of the electron in 1897, the particle has been considered fundamental and has been used in various
combinations to explain the periodic system of the elements, following a precedent set by Thomson himself. The history of the electron
reveals, however, that electron configurations and quantum mechanics can provide only approximate (though useful) explanations of the
periodic system. A hundred years after Thomson's work, long-established notions about the electron are coming into question. Recent
models of the electron developed in Germany and the U.S. suggest that the particle may have an underlying structure. The model depicted
here, in an image developed by physicist Dennis Harp of Purdue University, is based on work by David Koltick and his experimental
group at Purdue.

within this positive charge and went on to pro dition of a sixth magnet, however, led to the
duce the first set of electronic arrangements? formation of a second ring. Thomson thought
what today would be called electronic configu that the same principle might operate in the
rations. In taking this step Thomson went case of electrons and was motivated to develop
beyond Perrin and Nagaoka in conceiving of these views by a desire to explain the periodic
the electrons as not just moving around the table in terms of the particle that he had dis
atom but doing so in a structured manner. covered. Thus, in many respects J. J. Thomson
Thomson based his configurations on the can be regarded as the grandfather of electron
work of an American physicist, Alfred Mayer, ic configurations.
who had experimented with magnets attached In keeping with the arrangements of May
to corks and floated in a circular basin of water. er's magnets, Thomson's configuration shifted
When five magnets were placed in the water, to a second ring at six electrons, waited until
for example, they formed a single ring. The ad 10 electrons to add a first electron to the sec

1997 November-December 547

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 16 Dec 2017 01:48:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Of course, that is not in fact the case. It would
be a mistake, however, to dismiss Thomson's
work. He and his contemporaries did not
know the number of electrons in any particu
lar atom. Thomson believed, for example, that
an oxygen atom had as many as 56 electrons,
whereas the current value stands at just eight.
Rather, his scheme should be considered an
attempt to explain periodicity according to
similarities in electronic structures between
different elements.

Counting on Quanta
In the course of investigating the stability of
Thomson's electron rings during a postdoctoral
Figure 2. Dimitri Mendeleev's discovery of the periodic system in 1869 was quickly fellowship spent at Cambridge and Manches
followed by controversy over how it should be used. Mendeleev resisted reduction or ter, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr hit upon
explanation of the system in terms of atomic structure, and was specifically opposed the idea that the energy of the orbiting electrons
to attempts to draw curves through points representing numerical data. Lothar Meyer, manifested itself in discrete amounts, or quanta.
who contributed to the discovery of the periodic system, was not so averse to reduc This approach allowed Bohr to construct a
tion, however. One of his graphs, shown here in an 1870 publication, plotted atomic
highly successful theory of the hydrogen atom.
volume and was instrumental in the acceptance of the periodic system.
It is rather mteresting that the popular account
of this episode is that Bohr developed his theo
ond ring, formed a third ring at element 17 ry in order to explain the spectrum of the hy
(configured with 11 in the outer ring and 5 in drogen atom. In fact, however, the historians
the middle), and so on. It is interesting to note John Heilbron and Thomas S. Kuhn have
that some crucial, or differentiating, electrons shown conclusively that the initial motivation
are being added to an inner ring. Such an elec for Bohr's theory was, instead, an attempt to
tronic arrangement suggests an analogy be gain an understanding of the periodic table
tween boron (element 5) and sulfur (element through electronic configurations.
16), both of which have a ring with 5 electrons. Bohr began by devising electronic configu
rations in terms of just one quantum number,
the principal quantum number that could be
used to characterize the stationary or nonradi
ating states of the atom. It is clear from the con
figurations he chose that he used essentially
chemical considerations. For example, in mov
ing from element 6 (carbon) to element 7 (nitro
gen), he suddenly rearranges the inner shell,
which in carbon had two electrons, to four elec
trons in order to have the outer shell of nitrogen
contain three electrons?a nod to the well
known trivalency of nitrogen, that is, its ten
dency to form three bonds. Bohr clearly tin
kered with his configurations to make things
come out right and gave no theoretical argu
ments for such a rearrangement. Instead of rig
orous derivation from quantum theory, his ap
proach consisted of a mix of intuition with
spectroscopic and chemical considerations.
What Bohr accomplished in this work was
to introduce the important idea that the differ
entiating electron should, in most cases, occu
py the outer shell of the atom. Also, however
arbitrary this scheme may have been, there
was at least some correlation between elec
Figure 3. Alfred Mayer's experiments with magnets
tronic configurations and chemical periodicity.
floating in water (illustrated in one of his publica
tions with this sketch) were the template J. J. The configuration of lithium, for example, is
Thomson used to develop his first electron configura
2,1, whereas that of sodium, which lies in the
tions (see Figure 4). Mayer found that the magnets same group chemically, is 8,2,1. Similarly,
adopted different patterns depending on the number beryllium and magnesium, which are found
introduced, leading Thomson to suspect that similar together in group two of the periodic table,
principles would pertain to electron configurations. share the same property of having two outer

548 American Scientist, Volume 85

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 16 Dec 2017 01:48:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
shell electrons. Here then emerged the now
well-known concept that atoms fall into the
same group of the periodic table if they possess number of electrons
the same number of outer-shell electrons.
Soon after Bohr developed his initial config 5 5
uration, Arnold Sommerfeld in Munich real 6 1+5
7 1+6
ized the need to characterize the stationary 8 1+7
states of the electron in the hydrogen atom by 9 1+8
means of a second quantum number?the so 10 2+8
called angular-momentum quantum number.
Bohr immediately applied this discovery to 16 5+11
many-electron atoms and in 1922 produced a 17 1+5+11
18 1+6+11
set of more detailed electronic configurations. 1+7+11
19
In turn, Sommerfeld went on to discover the 1+7+12
20
third, or inner, quantum number, thus enabling 21 1+8+12
the British physicist Edmund Stoner to come
up with an even more refined set of electronic
configurations in 1924. Figure 4. Thomson's system of rings of electrons
Bohr himself had been aware of the discov embedded in the positive charge of the nucleus
ery of the third quantum number, but by that developed a second, inner ring when six electrons
time he had begun to be concerned about the were present and a third ring, inside the second, at 17
use of quantum numbers in many-electron electrons. Unfortunately, this arrangement suggests
atoms. It had become clear that such numbers an analogy between boron (element 5) and sulfur
(element 16), which is not the case. Thomson and his
could not be rigorously defined, and a prob
colleagues were impeded by a lack of knowledge of
lem called "retention of quantum numbers" the number of electrons in various atoms.
began to exert an increasing influence on Bohr.
According to Ehrenfest's adiabatic principle,
calculations of quantum states of one system plained why each successive shell can occupy
could be made from another one provided 2, 8,18 ... In1 electrons, where n denotes the
they could be connected by an adiabatic?a shell number.
gradual transformation whereby a system's en When the first quantum number takes the
ergy, but not its state, changes. Such proce value one, the second quantum number can
dures, however, can only be strictly applied to only be zero and likewise the third quantum
simply or multiply periodic systems. Many number. Now according to Pauli's exclusion
electron atoms are aperiodic systems and thus principle it is forbidden for more than one elec
remain beyond this procedure. tron in a shell, therefore having the same n val
This problem clearly did not worry Stoner, ue, to have the same values for the remaining
who just went ahead and assumed that three three quantum numbers. This gives the predic
quantum numbers could be specified in many tion that a maximum of two electrons occupy
electron atoms. In any case, Stoner's scheme the first shell and that these share the same first
solved certain problems present in Bohr's con three quantum numbers but differ in the value
figurations. For example, Bohr had assigned of the fourth, adopting one of two values. For
phosphorus the configuration 2,4,4,4,1, but this the n = 2 shell the situation is more complicat
failed to explain the fact that phosphorus ed, since there are two possible values for the
shows valencies of three and five. Stoner's con second quantum number, namely one and zero
figuration for phosphorus was 2,2,2,4,2,2,1, (as shown in Figure 6). When the second quan
which easily explains the valencies, since it be
comes plausible that either the two or the three
outermost subshells of electrons form bonds.
Bohr continued to be concerned about the
deeper theoretical aspects of the problem and
appealed to his young colleague, Wolfgang
B 2, 3
C 2, 4
Pauli, to try to clarify the situation within the N 4, 3
principles of quantum theory. Pauli began by O 4, 2,
introducing a fourth quantum number to
characterize the stationary state of each elec
Figure 5. Niels Bohr came up with the idea that the energy of orbiting electrons
tron and produced his celebrated exclusion would be in discrete amounts, or quanta. This enabled him to successfully describe
principle. Unlike the previously introduced the hydrogen atom, with its single electron. In developing the remainder of his first
quantum numbers, this one could take values table of electron configurations, however, Bohr clearly relied on chemical proper
of only +1/2 or -1/2. The biggest advantage ties, rather than quantum theory, to assign electrons to shells. In this segment of his
of this new approach was that it became pos configuration table, one can see that Bohr adjusted the number of electrons in nitro
sible to explain the closing of the electron gen's inner shell in order to make the outer shell, or the reactive shell, reflect the
shells in the periodic table?that is, it ex element's known trivalency.

1997 November-December 549

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 16 Dec 2017 01:48:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 number of electrons running total

1 0 0 +1/2
-1/2 2
2 0 0 +1/2
-1/2 2
2 1 -1 +1/2
-1/2
2 1 0 +1/2
-1/2 2
2 1 1 +1/2
-1/2 2
3 0 0 +1/2
-1/2 2

Figure 6. Wolfgang Pauli's discovery of the exclusion principle led to his development of a fourth quantum number to d
At the time, it was known that each successive electron shell in an atom could contain 2, 8,18 ... In1 electrons (where n i
and Pauli's fourth number made it possible to explain this. When an electron's first quantum number is one, the seco
zero, leaving two possibilities for the fourth number. Thus the first shell can contain only two electrons. At n = 2, there
binations of the second and third numbers, each of which has two possible fourth numbers. Thus the second shell cl
eight electrons.

rum number is zero, the third quantum num

The popularly used, medium-long form
ber also adopts a zero value, and since the
the periodic table (see Figure 7) does not d
fourth quantum number can be one of play
two val
the regular and symmetrical increase
ues, two electrons are accounted for. When the of the periods to quite the extent that
the size
second quantum number in the second shell
could. This is because the elements in group
takes the value of one, however, the
and third
II (s-block) of the table are conventiona
quantum number may be -1, 0 or +1,depicted
each ofon the left of the table, which is the
which can show two values for theinterrupted
fourth by a block consisting of the tran
quantum number, accounting for a further six
tion elements (d-block) and followed by the
electrons. Similar considerations for the third
ements in the p-block. (The names for each
the blocks are derived from the labels for t
and fourth shells predict 18 and 32 electrons
respectively. Thus Pauli's fourth orbitals
quantum occupied by the differentiating e
trons, s,
number, along with his exclusion principle, al p, d, and f). From time to time, alte
lowed the various shells to be closed native
while rerepresentations of the periodic sys
taining the rules for assigning the previously
have been proposed in an attempt to emph
established quantum numbers. size its underlying symmetry, includin
three-dimensional design by Fernando Dufo
(see Figure 9) and two-dimensional versions
dependently proposed by Thomas Bayley, J
gen Thomsen and Bohr. Unfortunately, the
tables have not been widely adopted.

Quantum Numbers in Question

Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn To return to the historical sequence, althou
Pauli had upheld the use of quantum numb
Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd in specifying stationary states of the atom, h
began to share Bohr's worries and soon beca
Lu Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg the leading advocate against the use of mecha
ical models?in particular, electron orbits a
Lr Rf Db Sg Bh Hs M? 110 111 112
electronic configurations?of atoms. He claim
that flunking in terms of electron orbits amou
ed to putting atoms in the "shackles of our pr
La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb
udices," and that people who needed t
Ac Th Pa U Hp Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm U6 Ho "crutch of the conception of uniquely defin
electron orbits and mechanical models [wer
weak." He thought that atomic theories sho
be based not on visualizable models but rath
Figure 7. In the conventional medium-long form of the periodic table, the elements
are shown with the d-block (pink) between the s-block (blue) and the onp-block
observable
(laven quantities. Although Pauli
garded his
der), to reflect the order of subshell filling shown in figure 10 and contrary treatment of electron orbits usi
to the
order expected from figure 6. four quantum numbers as a temporary stage

550 American Scientist, Volume 85

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 16 Dec 2017 01:48:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ns
H He

Cs Ba La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po A
Fr Ra Ac Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No Lr Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 11

Figure 8. Alternative and updated periodic table, adapted from tables developed by Thomas Bayley, Jorgen Thomsen and Niels Bo
tables all depict the symmetrical nature of the periodic law regarding the increase in intervals before periodicity occurs in every othe
with the exception of the first one. Tie lines denote chemical analogies.

the evolution of physics, the success of his form.

dis In quantum mechanics the principle is
covery in apparently explaining the structurerestated:
of The wavefunction for a system of
the periodic table unwittingly legitimizedfermions
and such as electrons is antisymmetrical
carried forward its use. on the interchange of any two particles.
Very soon thereafter Werner Heisenberg Of
didcourse, nowadays, as every student of
what Pauli had been advocating and devel
chemistry and physics knows, electron orbits
have
oped a form of mechanics that had nothing to been replaced by orbitals that are sup
do with electron orbits and was concerned
posed to be smeared out in space. But this view
misses
only with what could be observed. At ap the point somewhat and is not the
whole lesson from quantum mechanics. The
proximately the same time Erwin Schr?dinger
developed his wave-mechanical version moreof radical lesson is that even these proba
quantum mechanics. For a while it seemed as
bility-based orbitals simply do not exist. The
notion
though there were two different theories of of assigning four quantum numbers to
quantum mechanics, until they were shown
each electron is just an approximation, albeit a
to be mathematically equivalent. According
powerful one.
to the new quantum mechanics, the very no
The Periodic Table Explained?
tion of individual electrons in stationary states
So what are we to make of the claim that the
was shown to be invalid, as Pauli had earlier
speculated. The quantum mechanics ofperiodic Hei table has now been explained in terms
senberg and Schr?dinger shows that orbitals of electronic configurations and the number of
simply do not exist. There is a clear-cut math
outer-shell electrons possessed by atoms of the
ematical proof of this; it is not just a question
elements? Perhaps the best way to answer this
of interpretation. question is to admit that the explanation is ap
This is a crucial and frequently overlooked
proximate and that a number of objections can
point about electronic configurations. They be
areraised to it.
far from being based in quantum mechanics; For
it example, whichever form of the table is
is precisely this theory that shows them toused,
be an interesting feature emerges: The se
quence 2,10,18, 36, 54, 86 of atomic numbers,
an inadequate concept. The notion that elec
in or
tron orbits and configurations really exist which each period is closed in the sense of
"refer" is a relic of the old quantum theoryreaching
and a noble-gas structure, does not appear
to have a strictly quantum-mechanical expla
of Pauli's introduction of the exclusion princi
nation. Although Pauli's brilliant discovery
ple in its original and now strictly incorrect

1997 November-December 551

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 16 Dec 2017 01:48:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 more remarkable, as the leading theoretical
chemist Per-Olav L?wdin has pointed out, the
sequence of atomic numbers denoting the clos
ing of the periods has never been derived from
the principles of quantum mechanics.
The reason why the closing of the shells
does not coincide with the closing of the peri
ods is that the shells are not filled in strictly se
quential order. For example, the fourth shell
begins to fill at the element potassium, even
though the third shell has not yet been com
pleted. The resumption of third-shell filling af
ter the 4s subshell has been filled accounts for
the appearance of the first transition-metal se
ries beginning with scandium and ending with
zinc. Even more perversely, the order in which
shells are filled, contrary to the accounts in
many textbooks of chemistry and physics, does
not reflect the order of increasing energy of
atomic orbitals. As a result of such features,
electronic configurations must be assigned by
reference to spectroscopic evidence on each of
the elements and not by relying entirely on the
putative explanation of the periodic system in
terms of quantum-mechanical theory.
But matters get worse. Even the experimen
Figure 9. Fernando Dufour's symmetrical and three
tally obtained filling scheme shown in Figure
dimensional periodic table. (Photograph courtesy of 10 does not lead to the observed electronic con
the author.)
figurations of all the elements. In fact there are
about 20 genuine exceptions to this procedure,
succeeded in explaining the total number of starting with chromium. According to the stan
electrons that are required for the closing of dard filling order, chromium should adopt the
each shell, his principle does not explain the configuration [Ar] 4s2 3d4, where the notation
point at which each period is closed unless the [Ar] is shorthand for the argon core, the labels
observed order of shell filling is assumed. Even 4s and 3d refer to particular orbitals, and the
superscripts denote how many electrons each
order of filling of shells orbital contains. Instead, however, chromium
adopts the configuration [Ar] 4s1 3d5. Also, the
simple electron filling order fails to indicate that
the three final electrons to enter an atom such
as nitrogen do so in such a way as to occupy
three separate atomic orbitals. This too is an ex
perimental finding embodied in Hund's rule,
which states that when multiple electrons occu
py a set of orbitals having equal energies, they
occupy as many different orbitals as possible.
Seen in light of the need for these somewhat ad
hoc maneuvers, the purely quantum-mechani
cal explanation for the periodic table in terms of
electrons seems illusory.
In order to appreciate another problem with
electronic configurations, suppose we consider
the element scandium, which has atomic num
ber 21. This atom could conceivably have one
of the following configurations: Sc [Ar] 4s2 3d1,
Sc [Ar] 4s1 3d2 or Sc [Ar] 4s? 3d3. Can the ex
Figure 10. Electron shell closure fails to coincide with the
perimentally observed first configuration be
closing of periods in the periodic table because the shells predicted from first principles by quantum
do not fill in strictly sequential order. As shown here, the mechanics? No. In fact, all that quantum me
fourth shell begins to fill before the third shell has been chanical calculations can do is compute which
completed. The resumption of third-shell filling accounts of these three configurations has the minimum
for the appearance of the first transition-metal series, energy. That is not the same as deriving the
beginning with scandium and ending with zinc. correct configuration from first principles.

552 American Scientist, Volume 85

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 16 Dec 2017 01:48:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The basic idea underlying the view that the tic view of the system and emphasized only its
periodic table has been reduced to electronic classifying aspects. Exactly 100 years ago, the
configurations is that elements sharing the electron, the first subatomic component, was
same number of outer-shell electrons are in the discovered and pointed the way for a swing
same group of the periodic table. But this is back toward a realistic account of atomic
simply not the case, since the possession of a physics. In due course, this led to the equally
particular configuration is neither a necessary realistic electron-shell approach to the period
nor a sufficient condition for elements to fall ic system. About 30 years later, the reality of
electron shells and orbitals had evaporated
within the same group of the periodic system.
If it were a necessary condition, elements into the formalism of quantum mechanics,
falling into the same group would be bound leaving behind just the mathematical utility of
to possess the same outer-shell configuration. superimposed expressions of electronic con
But counterexamples are easily found, includ figurations. Thus, although the reality and
ing nickel (Ni, 4s2), palladium (Pd, 5s?) and utility of electrons are now taken for granted,
platinum (Pt, 6s1). Each shows a different out electron orbitals have been discovered not to
er-shell configuration, yet they are grouped to exist and their explanatory power proves to
gether because of their marked chemical simi be only approximate.
larities. If it were the case that possession of a Other aspects of the traditional view of the
particular configuration is a sufficient condi electron continue to come into question. Ex
tion for membership to a particular group, pos periments carried out in Germany this year
session of a certain configuration would ensure suggest that the electron may not be funda
that the atoms of those elements would fall mental after all. Instead, it may possess a sub
into a particular group. Yet the elements heli structure consisting of lepto quarks. One can
um, beryllium and magnesium?all of which not help but speculate whether there may
share the property of having two outer-shell come a point when the electron itself, which
electrons?do not fall within the same group. has been the cause of so many celebrations this
Helium is a highly inert gas invariably placed year, might also turn out to be not so real.
at the head of the noble gases, whereas berylli
um and magnesium are reactive metals be Bibliography
longing in group II of the periodic table. Bohr, N. 1913 On the constitution of atoms and mole
cules, Part II: systems containing only a single nucle
us. Philosophical Magazine 26:476-502.
Pragmatic Approximation
Chayut, M. 1991. J. J. Thomson: the discovery of the elec
Although the preceding paragraphs have tron and the chemists. Annals of Science 48:527-544.
raised doubts about the traditional explanation
Heilbron, J. Lv and T. S. Kuhn. 1969. The genesis of the
for the periodic system in terms of numbers of Bohr atom. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences
outer-shell electrons, there is an important 1:211-290.
sense in which the quantum-mechanical theo Jensen, W. B. 1986. Classification, symmetry and the pe
ry of electron motion can provide a much bet riodic table. Computation and Mathematics with Expla
nations 12B:487-509.
ter, though still approximate, explanation. This
alternative explanation does not lend itself to L?wdin, P-0.1969. Some comments on the periodic sys
tem of elements. International Journal of Quantum
visualizable models involving electrons in Chemistry. Symposium 3:331-334.
shells. Instead, it is the notion that the proper
Mayer, A. M. 1878. A note on experiments with floating
ties of atoms that show periodicity?such as magnets. American Journal of Science 15:276-277.
the total energy of any atom?can be calculat Mazurs, E. 1974. Graphic Representations of the Periodic
ed from the Schr?dinger equation to a high de System During One Hundred Years. Tuscaloosa, Alaba
gree of accuracy for any particular atom. These ma: Alabama University Press.
calculations typically involve a description of Melrose, M., and E. R. Scerri. 1996. Why the 4s orbital is
the atom in terms of sums of contributions occupied before the 3d. Journal of Chemical Education
73:498-503.
from numerous, literally billions of, electronic
Pauli, W. 1925. Uber den Zusammenhang des ab
configurations. Yet the atom itself cannot be schlusses der elektrongruppen im atom mit der kom
said to possess any of the particular configura plexstruktur der spektren. Zeitschrift f?r Physik.
tions that are used as aids to calculation. The 31:765-783.
configurations that contribute to the atom's en Scerri, E. R. 1991. Electronic configurations, quantum
ergy are not thought to be "real," but merely mechanics and reduction. British Journal for the Philos
function as useful instruments in carrying out ophy of Science 42:309-325.

the calculations. This approach has the charac
ter of what philosophers of science call instru
mentalism or antirealistn.
Taking a telescopic view of all these devel
opments, we see an interesting turnabout re
garding the periodic table. Over 125 years ago
Mendeleev, probably the leading discoverer of
the periodic system, refused to adopt a realis
Scerri, E. R. 1994. Plus ?a change.... Chemistry in Britain.
30:379-381.
Sutton, C, and J. Butterworth. 1997. Time to die.... New
Scientist (5 April) 32-35.
Thomson, J. J. 1904. On the structure of the atom. Philo
sophical Magazine 7:237-265.
van Spronsen, J. W. 1969. The Periodic System of Chemical
Elements, a History of the First Hundred Years. Amster
dam: Elsevier.

1997 November-December 553

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 16 Dec 2017 01:48:52 UTC
View publication stats
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms