I would like to take up the claim in the early part of the paper to the effect that there is no such thing as the periodic table but only variations in periodic tables. Although this is a common view among chemists I believe it is incorrect.

I claim that chemical periodicity is an objective property of Nature whereby the elements recur, albeit approximately, after certain intervals if they are arranged in order of Z. If so then there is a ‘fact of the matter’ as to whether the first period has two elements or perhaps 4 for the sake of argument. There is also a fact of the matter as to whether there may be two short periods of two elements as shown in the left-step table.

It is therefore perfectly legitimate in my view for us to seek THE periodic table which best reflects chemical periodicity. The periodic table is admittedly a human construct but only in the trivial sense. It is Nature that dictates chemical periodicity and it is Nature that ultimately dictates the form of the periodic table.

Let me also make it clear that I am not referring merely to the shape of a periodic table, whether it be rectangular, circular or even three -dimensional. I am referring to the placement of elements and whether H for example is placed in group 1 or 17 or even 14 as some have suggested. Similarly the question of the placement of He in group 2 or 18 has an objective answer even if we have not settled this yet.

Conclusion: There is indeed one periodic table and it is worth striving to discover it rather than repeating that all periodic tables were constructed by us for our convenience. The latter view smacks of constructivism and even relativism and it is surprising to me that chemists can advocate such a view, although given the pernicious influence of constructivism nothing should surprise us.

Eric Scerri

author of “The Periodic Table, Its Story and Its Significance”,

Oxford University Press, 2007.