1

The wikipedia page for atomic radius shows two periodic tables for the atomic radius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius

One was published by slater in 1964, the other by Clementi in 1967. I understand why those tables are different, but I am asking myself if these radii are still somewhat correct. I found that wikipedia entries on such fundamental stuff usually use reasonable references. The researchers were definitely smart people and knew what they were doing, but in 50 years of thecnical progress, isn't there much more accurate data available? Or in other words, are those radii even remotely state of the art today?

And
  • 143
  • It is a fuzzy enough, and generally useless, concept that there is no ‘state-if-the-art’ to worry about. – Jon Custer Sep 18 '20 at 12:36
  • How so? Surely a mass spectrometer from today can be more precise than a 50 year old model. Or an electron microscope. Or some other instrument. Or do you mean the atomic radii themselves? – And Sep 18 '20 at 13:04
  • Trying to define one singular radius around a fuzzy object is not precise (what is the 'radius' of the 1s hydrogen electron wave function?). The 'atomic radius' does not play into either the mass or how you image in an electron microscope. – Jon Custer Sep 18 '20 at 13:11

0 Answers0