Science desk
< June 17	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 18

If atomic number was known in 1869, would the unknown elements (as of that time) be discovered earlier?

In 1869, Mendeleev predicted that there exists elements with atomic masses 44, 68, 72, 100, and they corresponding to atomic numbers 21, 31, 32, 43, unfortunately, at that time, only atomic mass was known and atomic number was not known, and according to the article Discovery of chemical elements, the unknown elements as of 1850 are the elements with atomic numbers 2, 10, 18, 21, 31, 32, 36, 37, 43, 49, 54, 55, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 81, …, if atomic number was known in 1869 (or 1850), would these elements be discovered earlier (by finding the elements with missing atomic numbers)? 220.132.216.52 (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking us to speculate, which we don't do here. However, I don't see how that information would lead to any elements being discovered earlier. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mendeleev only correctly predicted elements 21, 31, 32, 43 and did not predict elements 2, 10, 18, 36, if atomic number was known in 1869, then maybe Mendeleev would also predict elements 2, 10, 18, 36? 220.132.216.52 (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a document is sent to Mendeleev through a time machine, saying, "All elements have an atomic number. For hydrogen it is 1, for lithium it is 3, ..., and for thorium it is 90. Your four predicted elements have atomic numbers 21, 31, 32 and 43." How would this information have been useful to Mendeleev, or any scientist of his time, in making predictions? --Lambiam 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Any scientist of Mendeleev's time" will include Bohr (16), Rutherford (2) and van der Broek (1) where their ages at Mendeleev's prediction are in brackets. It's unlikely that any of them will benefit from a magical receipt of numbers without explanation that do not fit then-known atomic weights. There is just a tiny probability that your tipoff causes baby van der Broek who is destined to arrange the periodic table by proton numbers at age 41 in 1911 (4 years after Mendeleev's death) to do so earlier. Philvoids (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OP must be thinking about a Bell number for the combinations and arrangements leading to atomic numbers. Yet Mendeleev would simply have not been Mendeleev himself (and more than probably someone else would have grabbed the document instead). Here is a view described more similar to Medeleev own private domain of thinking. And yet ions themselves... --Askedonty (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mendeleev should find the missing atomic numbers (2, 10, 18, 21, 31, 32, 36, 37, 43, 49, 54, 55, …) and try to predict the properties of the elements with these atomic numbers. 42.76.70.59 (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic mass are not consecutive numbers, but atomic numbers are. 42.76.70.59 (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you really need for many of these discoveries is to push the invention of the spectroscope earlier. Otherwise, it is very difficult to find elements like Ga, which don't have any common high-content minerals. Note that element 43 remained elusive for a while even after the discovery of atomic numbers: this is a similar case where having the theory doesn't mean you'll find the element, since you need technology that isn't there yet (in this case, artificial transmutation).

There are a few cases that could get away without it. Henry Cavendish came pretty close to discovering argon, and if he really did it, I can see the noble gases as already being known by Mendeleev's time. Among the lanthanides, europium in particular has a +2 oxidation state that could have been used to find it much earlier. Double sharp (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gas non-giants

Planet says that planets are classified as "a giant planet, an ice giant, or a terrestrial planet". This doesn't appear to leave room for Earth-size gas planets. Why can't they exist? Or can they exist theoretically, and we just don't know of any? Nyttend (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could the gas dwarf form in the first place? One theory of formation is that solids have to coalesce first to make a planet that can attract gas to make a gas giant. SO small objects will not form. But if a ball of gas the size of Earth existed would it be stable and survive? Probably not as the density would be lower and so gravity is lower. It would have to be far from the Sun to stop solar wind erosion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

e/c You need a lot of mass (gravity) to keep that gas together, and with too little mass any atmosphere would disappear (Mercury, Venus, etc). Earth is just the right size. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though Venus has a significant carbon dioxide atmosphere. So perhaps you could have a planet made from carbon dioxide. Though with pressure this would transform into diamond and metallic oxygen in the core. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Between ice giants and terrestrial planets, there's room for ocean worlds. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Super-Earths. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.226.178 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the data we have, planets generally obtain a Neptune-like atmosphere once they cross two Earth masses.

On the other hand, in a way Venus is close to what you want. Its atmosphere even goes supercritical as it approaches the surface. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]