SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Gold's glimmer is not the only reason the element is so captivating. For decades, scientists have puzzled over why theoretical predictions of gold's properties don't match up with experiments. Now, highly detailed calculations have erased the discrepancy, according to a paper published in the Jan. 13 Physical Review Letters.
At issue was the energy required to remove an electron from a gold atom, or ionize it. Theoretical calculations of this ionization energy differed from scientists' measurements. Likewise, the energy released when adding an electron — a quantity known as the electron affinity — was also off the mark. How easily an atom gives up or accepts electrons is important for understanding how elements react with other substances.
"It was well known that gold is a difficult system," says chemist Sourav Pal of the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, who was not involved with the study. Even gold's most obvious feature can't be explained without calling Einstein's special theory of relativity into play: The theory accounts for gold's yellowish color. (Special relativity shifts around the energy levels of electrons in gold atoms, causing the metal to absorb blue light, and thereby making reflected light appear more yellow.)
With this new study, scientists have finally resolved the lingering questions about the energy involved in removing or adding an electron to the atom. "That is the main significance of this paper," Pal says.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @11:10AM
Well, as soon as something is well-enough known to be found in Wikipedia, [wikipedia.org] it certainly doesn't need to be put into the article abstract. The ionization energy of gold is 890.1 kJ/mol. Yes, that's in a different unit, but also on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] you learn that 96.485 kJ/mol ≡ 1 eV. So it's 9.225 eV.
And they didn't write "meV-level", they wrote "meV accuracy". Which should mean accurate to the meV, what else?
So the relative accuracy is of the order of about 10-4.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @05:47PM
You are wrong. The abstract should be self contained as much as possible. Most physicists (the readership of PRL) will not know the ionization energy of gold without consulting a reference. And omitting the number of meV does not imply that the number is one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @03:43AM
No, you are wrong. Most physicists have references at hand, and they know how to use them. Academia surrounds itself in books at all times. If you need handholding and coddling to understand the story, you should get your favorite mentor (or kindergarden teacher) to help you with the story.