Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. What and how physics contributes to understanding the periodic law.V. N. Ostrovsky - 2001 - Foundations of Chemistry 3 (2):145-181.
    The current status of explanation worked out by Physics for the Periodic Law is considered from philosophical and methodological points of view. The principle gnosiological role of approximations and models in providing interpretation for complicated systems is emphasized. The achievements, deficiencies and perspectives of the existing quantum mechanical interpretation of the Periodic Table are discussed. The mainstream ab initio theory is based on analysis of selfconsistent one-electron effective potential. Alternative approaches employing symmetry considerations and applying group theory usually require some (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Commentary on Allen & Kinght’s Response to the Löwdin Challenge.Eric R. Scerri - 2006 - Foundations of Chemistry 8 (3):285-292.
    This commentary provides a critical examination of a recent article by Allen and Knight in which the authors claim to provide the long-sought explanation for the Madelung, or n + ℓ, n rule for the order of orbital filling in many-electron atoms. It is concluded that the explanation is inadequate for several reasons.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Prediction of the nature of hafnium from chemistry, Bohr's theory and quantum theory.Eric R. Scerri - 1994 - Annals of Science 51 (2):137-150.
    The chemical nature of element 72, subsequently named hafnium, is generally regarded as a prediction from Bohr's theory of the periodic system and hence as a prediction from quantum theory. It is argued that both of these views and in particular the latter are mistaken. The claim in favour of Bohr's theory is weakened by his accommodation of independent chemical arguments and the claim in favour of quantum theory is untenable since the prediction is not strictly deductive.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations