The periodic Table of Elements traditionally belongs to Chemistry, on the strength
that Mendeleev was a Chemist. But nuclear Physics would not exist without this table as well. Chemists also were first with idea of "transmutation" of elements. Maria Sklodovskaya was granted Nobel Prize in Physics and Nobel Prize in Chemistry working in the same field, Radioactivity.
So, what is your opinion on the subject ?
Dear Alex,
of course to both!
Primary it´s a physical problem, secondary it has consequences for the rest of natural sciences like chemistry or biology.
Dear Alex,
of course to both!
Primary it´s a physical problem, secondary it has consequences for the rest of natural sciences like chemistry or biology.
I know at least 1 discipline, which equally belongs to Physics and Chemistry , namely, Physical Chemistry, first formulated by President of Russian Academy of Science Mikhailo Lomonosov, in 18th Century. The Subject is Chemistry, but methods of problem solutions are taken from Physics. I know that first hand, as I work in this field for 54 years.
Dear Alex,
I´m nuclear physicist. You will accept my different opinon.
Sure, Hanno, I respect your opinion. But our RG peers can have their own opinions. Let's wait and read their posts, I hope more peers will participate in this discussion, but one never knows.
Meanwhile, I relocated to Malaga, Spain for personal reasons. The climate is the same as in Tel Aviv. New buildings are identical in both countries.
Dear Alex,
I wish you good times in Malaga and don´t forget the wonderful kitchen.
Regards
It belongs to both. Due to a set of lucky circumstances I knew personally Pavle Savic, one of the collaborators of Joliot Curie at the Institut de Radium in Paris. I remember his stories that their experimental work was a mixture of physics and chemistry
The two fields are not mutually exclusive, instead they overlap in a huge part.
I shall go with an example,
Marble Mining
FTIR and thin section analysis are used for quantitative determination of Quartz, feldspar, calcite and mafic minerals while the geochemical parameters such as in SiO2 / Mafic minerals / CaCO3 are indexed to evaluate radiological risks during the selection process of marbles. The risk needs to be at LOW. In this case, even though the elements may be classified in the Periodic Table, the application is Physics. Therefore to derive a radio activity process, Physics plays more role; later Chemistry follows.
When you go deeper into the nuclear physics, then only physicist can understand the subject due to the complicated mathematics involved in understanding the subject. Indeed it is a physical phynomena.
I was always been confused about the existence of clear borders between Physics and Chemistry, so I think that answer is difficult. Every Chemist studies the quantum theory that governs the orbits of the orbital electrons and this is clearly Physics. But, the whole concept of chemical reactions is Chemistry. On the other side all nuclear effects are classified to Physics, so probably Radioactivity is classified also there.
Dear all,
I love this very old discussion. And my clear opinion is: It´s possible to define a time scale in some special subclasses, but not at all a generally relevant hierarchy and scale of importance.
And a short remark to dear Demetris: you produce electron capture, distroy electron orbits, change chemical configurations etc?? I agree with your classification and analysis.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Babchin,
My inclination is to distinguish chemistry and physics by means of the specifics of their vocabulary, as involved in specifically chemical and physical theory. On this approach, the periodic table belongs to chemistry, along with Mendeleev's work. But he could have done the same work, I suppose, if he had been primarily, say a physicist. So, it is not that he was a chemist that argues for the inclusion of the periodic table in chemistry. Clearly, Maria Sklodovskaya could do work in both fields, or work connecting the fields.
That physics took notice of the periodic table is no surprise, of course. The question naturally arises of the physical basis of the differentiation of the elements. The chemical elements are surely objects of physics. Radioactive decay, on the other hand, seems clearly to belong to physics --chemical theory chiefly treats the chemical elements as units in interaction, while physics tells us that they are capable of change. From the perspective of physical theory, we see that treating the chemical elements as units in interaction, governed by chemical laws, is a kind of idealization.
None of this is intended to suggest, of course, that chemistry and physics do not interact, or that they cannot illuminate each other; on the contrary, that is just the reason that specialties arise focusing on, say, how physical theory helps in understanding the chemical elements and interactions. Physics was particularly influential in deeper understanding the the traditional chemical concept of "valence" --as an example.
H.G. Callaway
No dear Marcel,
please restrict yourself to natural sciences. Here is the place for radioactivity.
Folks, please, see ALCHEMY at Wikipedia. ALCHEMY is ancient Chemystry. Alchemy practitionrs tried to transmute LEAD into the GOALD, so, idea of Nuclear Reactions came from Ancient Chemistry, from the time Physics did not exist yet. So, Nuclear Phyics or Nuclear Chemistry Ideologicaly are branches of ALCHEMY.
Hanno, I am in Malaga, Spain. Let me have 6 month to establish residence here, As a Canadian Citizen I have to go to Toronto, submit application to Spanish consulate. Then I and my Lady Friend will rent apartment with the room for guests. I will invite you for a visit and hope you will honor my invitation.
Radioactivity is a part of science. Science is a discipline of knowledge. Knowledge and science have sub-disciplines the same as housing construction has sub-disciplines. We often see in housing construction that a strong division between tasks is enforced. Only a plumber can do this, only a carpenter can do that, and this, of course, is restricted to electricians; yet, all involve a hammer and a nail. To say a hammer or a nail belongs to carpentry hardly makes sense. Radioactivity belongs to science.
We could attempt a craft-like division of labor. This task is physics, this task is chemistry (analytical, physical, or organic), and then there is medical with its legally restricted use by licensed practitioners.
I believe that science is science with necessary specialization for depth of inquiry. We use the same physical laws and the same mathematics. If an epidemiologist uses an equation incorrectly we cannot allow hiding behind professionalism and exclude a chemist from noting the error.
By the way, I own a hammer.
Dear Alexander,
I would suggest the question is indicative as to how humans on a fundamental level create understanding. Apparently we humans in order to make sense of or understand something external to need to classify or categorize, in this case radioactivity (a phenomena) into a science in which it belongs. Marcel's question, along with Sorb, Krishnan,and Demetris answers are examples of this need and I often wonder why?
I am with what ever science comes to the table with an answer as to how to counteract the effects of radioactivity environmentally, physically, and emotionally. Thus I would say the effects of radioactivity with all do respect to Hanno both the natural and the social sciences. Radioactivity does far more than just damage cells it also has long lasting psychological as well. Ask the survivors and the grandchildren of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Douglas
Although, strictly speaking, radioactivity is of course a physical process, historically it would never have been possible to understand radioactivity without chemical separation of decay mother and decay daughter elements. Also fission was physically unthinkable until proven by chemists (and then explained ad-hoc by physicist Lise Meitner).
As about Cold Fusion, the effect was claimed by 2 Electrochemists. They were disgraced by mainstream people from Nuclear Physics. The same people promised hot temperature fusion process to deliver in 20 years. They promised it 60 years ago. And today they promised the same in 20 years from now. So, I personally believe that Cold Fusion underfunded research will produce results, while hot fusion is realised on the Sun, not on the Earth.
My personal guess is that hot fusion might be feasible but not commercially attractive. It will always have some disadvantages of nuclear power (high investment cost, proliferation problems, high regulatory effort). I don't see cold fusion. If it is so easy as some people claim it would have been found somewhere in nature.
Too many claims about cold fusion on small scale are coming from different organizations from Honest Scientist. Their problem is not to prove effect, but to upscale it.
Science is interdisciplinary and its subdisciplines go hand in hand. It would be hard for me to draw a line to the study of amino acids and DNA structure, even though everyone knows that it is biology, that it is chemistry or biology or any other natural science branch. I like Alvarez simple example of hammer and nail. I guess he is a geologist with a hammer studying geochemistry and geophysics of rocks.
Then, Cold Fusion effect belongs to Chemistry. Not only the field was pioneered by 2 Electrochemists, heavy hydrogen within, say Palladium Electrode, forms Palladium Hydride, alloy of Palladium with metallic hydrogen. That is within these alloy hydrogen tends to fuse. Very primitive explanation, but no Chemistry and no nuclear reaction.
@aldo: As a nuclear chemist, I would make a difference between nuclear chemistry and radiochemistry. What you describe (investigations of chemical properties using radioactive substances) I would classify as radiochemistry while nuclear chemistry means investigating nuclear properties using chemical methods (e. g. prove of nuclear fission by chemical identification of the fission products).
As I pointed out above, today, a prove of nuclear fission could be undertaken using physical methods (i. e. mass spectrometry) while historically it would have been impossible without (nuclear)chemical investigation.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry