Periodic Table Turns 150 Years Old (economist.com) 85
The Economist tells the story of how French chemist Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier came to publish the first putatively comprehensive list of chemical elements -- substances incapable of being broken down by chemical reactions into other substances -- known today as the periodic table. It was Lavoisier and his wife Marie-Anne who pioneered the technique of measuring quantitatively what went into and came out of a chemical reaction, as a way of getting to the heart of what such a reaction really is. "Where the story of the periodic table of the elements really starts is debatable," reports The Economist, "but Lavoisier's laboratory is as good a place as any to begin..." Here's an excerpt from the report: Lavoisier's list of elements, published in 1789, five years before his execution, had 33 entries. Of those, 23 -- a fifth of the total now recognized -- have stood the test of time. Some, like gold, iron and sulphur, had been known since ancient days. Others, like manganese, molybdenum and tungsten, were recent discoveries. What the list did not have was a structure. It was, avant la lettre, a stamp collection. But the album was missing.
Creating that album, filling it and understanding why it is the way it is took a century and a half. It is now, though, a familiar feature of every high-school science laboratory. Its rows and columns of rectangles, each containing a one- or two-letter abbreviation of the name of an element, together with its sequential atomic number, represent an order and underlying structure to the universe that would have astonished Lavoisier. It is little exaggeration to say that almost everything in modern science is connected, usually at only one or two removes, to the periodic table.
Creating that album, filling it and understanding why it is the way it is took a century and a half. It is now, though, a familiar feature of every high-school science laboratory. Its rows and columns of rectangles, each containing a one- or two-letter abbreviation of the name of an element, together with its sequential atomic number, represent an order and underlying structure to the universe that would have astonished Lavoisier. It is little exaggeration to say that almost everything in modern science is connected, usually at only one or two removes, to the periodic table.
The periodic table was published by Mendeleev (Score:5, Informative)
in Russia, and then republished in Germany the next year. The "table" of Lavoisier was a much simpler affair, which was pretty far from what a "periodic table" is. It had "elements" in it like "fire", "light", "caloric" and complex molecules.
But let's forget the science and go for the propaganda.
Re: The periodic table was published by Mendeleev (Score:5, Insightful)
Lavoisier was not a "moron". The goal to group the elements took a long time and a lot of work, and his was the first effort.
But it was Mendeleev who made the most important breakthrough - creating a model of the properties which allowed to classify elements by weight AND a periodic repeat of their chemical properties, which is the periodic part of the table. This, together with the idea of valence laid the foundations of the atomic theory, which eventually explained the physical nature of chemistry.
Re: The periodic table was published by Mendelee (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, the "moron" debunked the wildly popular phlogiston theory and discovered hydrogen and oxygen. He put chemistry on its way to uncovering the nature of specific gravity with his focus on weights and gases, at a time when one was unorthodox and the other virtually unknown.
He did all of this prior to America becoming a nation, before anything faster than a horse carriage was available to share ideas over land.
But sure, he's a "moron" according to people like who know nothing of history or science.
Re: (Score:1)
The execution of Lavoisier set the progress of chemistry back by decades.
Re: (Score:3)
So now science should only publish when the theories are perfect?
Re: The periodic table was published by Mendeleev (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you read that reply or just got triggered at mentioning of Russia?
Did you read his reply? Socialism essentially started with the French Revolution and Reign of Terror; Lavoisier was an intellectual and thus an enemy of the state [alphahistory.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason Lavoisier was hated was that he was a tax collector. In your rather limited world-view shouldn't that make him the socialist?
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism essentially started with the French Revolution
Are we ignoring Taborites now?
Re: The periodic table was published by Mendeleev (Score:1)
Edison? Do you mean Joseph Swan?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is totally irrelevant to the point of the OP. The PERIODIC LAW, which is the reason why the periodic table is called periodic in the first place was discovered by Mendeleev, and not by Lavoisier. Celebrating the latter as the creator of the periodic table just because he made a table of sorts is beyond ridiculous.
But then, it is the Economist, which is hardly famous for the scientific education of its authors.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, thanks for repeating the famous Isaac Newton quote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Mendeleev saw further than the people who worked before him, and that is why the periodic table is named after him.
What you misunderstood about it from reading Wikipedia just to post a comment here is your own problem.
Re: (Score:2)
And it was quite easy to stand on Lavoisier's shoulders, on account of him having no head to get in the way.
Re:Crybaby Putinite. (Score:5, Informative)
Celebrating the latter as the creator of the periodic table just because he made a table of sorts is beyond ridiculous.
Yeah it would if anyone did that.
But then, it is the Economist, which is hardly famous for the scientific education of its authors.
RAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGEEEE!!!
Since you haven't read TFA, let me inform you that your rage is misplaced. You could read it, or simply redirect your rage elsewhere.
Re:Crybaby Putinite. (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the fucking summary and get back to me.
RRAAAAAGGGGEEEE!!!
How on earth is the Economist supposed to be responsible for a summary of an article on a third party website? They're not but to admit so would spoil your delightfully righteous rage.
Why should I read an article about chemistry (or economics) in the Economist?
Because it is informative, interesting and well written.
It's kind of funny. You're incredibly angry about a summary someone posted and refuse to read the article which would show you that you're in fact making the wrong judgement of the article about it's summary.
Never, ever let the facts get in the way of a REALLY good hatefest.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what you read the article and I'll fuck off. Since I know you're pathologically opposed to doing that (because hey you might be wrong and we can't be having with that), I think I'll stick around.
Re:Crybaby Putinite. (Score:5, Informative)
The fucking summary doesn't do a good job of summarizing the article. The article is 34 paragraphs long, 15 of which are devoted to Mendeleev.
And thanks to your prejudice, you've missed out on what's actually a really good summary of the history of the periodic table.
Re: (Score:3)
what's actually a really good summary of the history of the periodic table.
I thought so too! Sort of makes me wonder how on earth they isolated elements without knowing either what they were looking for or having sophisticated equipment. I would love to read a longer history that went into all those nerdy details, plus the dead ends and partial discoveries.
Re: (Score:2)
The same person or small cabal has been in charge for 4-5 terms. That's not healthy even if they do fake a vote,
It seems to be "healthy" in the US for the Congress, which has a re-election rate above 90% [thoughtco.com]...
I award you zero points, etc. (Score:2)
Your link may shows that it happens, but that says nowt one way nor t'other on his claim about it not being healthy.
Your logical fallacy is ignoratio elenchi [wikipedia.org]. On top of that, tha can fuck reyt off.
Re: The periodic table was published by Mendeleev (Score:1)
On the pale blue dot there are power zones of some idiots, sometimes referred as Russia, EU, US, China, India etc. Those powerful idiots try to sell their zones as nations or something like that.
But we are humans. And science is global. Mendeleev was a member of a global community of scientists stretching not just in space, but in time as well.
Re:The periodic table was published by Mendeleev (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe you did not read the summary, which makes the claim:
The Economist tells the story of how French chemist Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier came to publish the first putatively comprehensive list of chemical elements ... known today as the periodic table.
And you did not read TFA, which also makes the claim that the history of the periodic table starts with Lavoisier, which is also quite debatable:
Where the story of the periodic table of the elements really starts is debatable. But Lavoisier’s laborato
Re:The periodic table was published by Mendeleev (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you did not read the summary (...) And you did not read TFA
Maybe you're dense but probably just trolling... the chemical elements used to be a list, before someone organized them into a table 150 years ago. The first reasonably complete list was published 230 years ago by somebody else. The list lead to the table, so that's why they say speak of it as the "story behind it" and "what you now know as the periodic table" because that's the form we present it in today.
Re: The periodic table was published by Mendeleev (Score:1)
Just a few years ago we celebrated 100 years of GTR discovery. Imagine that in celebration of that event Economist would run an article on Hendrik Lorentz without mentioning Albert Einstein. Lorentz was indeed a great scientist and his contribution certainly enabled Einstein's discovery. But wouldn't such an article rise some eyebrows and make people think of bias against Einstein?
Re: The periodic table was published by Mendeleev (Score:4, Informative)
. Imagine that in celebration of that event Economist would run an article on Hendrik Lorentz without mentioning Albert Einstein.
Imagine if the Economist ran an article about the periodic table without mentioning Mendeleev. Well, you'd have to because that never happened.
Re:The periodic table was published by Mendeleev (Score:3)
Which fucking moron modded this shit up.
Clearly no one who read the interesting and well written TFA, which gives both the historical context and the subsequent developments in order to place Mendeleev's invention both in history and to show its enormous level of importance.
Propaganda is ignoring or rewriting history, not accurately reporting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez.... It sounds to me like all you guys are menstruating.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. The 150 years in TFS title essentially relates to Mendeleev who's not even mentioned in TFS body which instead focuses on Lavoisier. Nothing to do with TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Lavoisier defined an element as a substance that cannot be broken down into a simpler substance by a chemical reaction.[5] This simple definition served for a century and lasted until the discovery of subatomic particles. Lavoisier's book contained a list of "simple substances" that Lavoisier believed could not be broken down further, which included oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, phosphorus, mercury, zinc and sulfur, which formed the basis for the modern list of elements
which happened almost 100 years before Mendeleev...
Well, (Score:2, Funny)
Happy Birthdayium!
Re: (Score:2)
Book recommendations on the history of chemistry (Score:2)
The story of the discovery of the elements, as briefly described in TFA is a fascinating one and I want more. What books on this subject can you recommend?
Re: (Score:2)
The Disappearing Spoon is a good read
Periodic Table Turns 150 Years Old (Score:2)
So it is more like a one time table then?
Re: (Score:1)
So it is more like a one time table then?
aperiodic table.
A much newer table (Score:2)
Actually (Score:2)
There's... (Score:2)