You may have heard the recent buzz about actor Terrence Howard’s claim that he has developed a revolutionary new way to arrange the periodic table of elements. Howard has touted his unorthodox periodic table model as a grand unified theory that could shake up chemistry and physics.
While any potential breakthrough science should be taken seriously, Howard’s fringe theory has been widely dismissed by experts as pseudoscientific nonsense lacking evidence and mathematical rigor. Let’s break down what Howard is claiming, why chemists say it’s bogus, and why – despite its flaws – his quirky idea ultimately poses little danger to society.
What Is Terrence Howard's Periodic Table Theory?
In late 2019, Howard began promoting his unconventional reorganization of the periodic table in interviews and on social media. He claims to have uncovered a profound new truth about the elements by perceiving an elegant mathematical pattern in their atomic numbers and weights.
According to Howard, the accepted standard periodic table arranged by increasing atomic number is wrong. Instead, he says the elements should be sequenced using a specific new logic involving multiplying their protons, neutron numbers, and coordinates to identify the true natural “order” and relationships between them that current science has missed.
His reordered periodic table looks significantly different from the standard model familiar to science students. Certain elements are grouped together in new ways based on Howard’s formulas about protons, atomic mass, and coordinates on a crisscrossing grid pattern.
He claims this “sweeping periodic geometrix” will revolutionize our understanding of physics and chemistry once embraced. Howard essentially posits that he has stumbled upon an elegant, unifying geometry and mathematical code at the heart of the elements and all of nature that is currently misunderstood, arrogantly dismissed as nonsense by mainstream scientists clinging to an outdated paradigm.
Why Chemists Say It's Just Bad Math
Howard’s periodic table theory has been debunked and emphatically rejected by the entire mainstream scientific community for very good reasons. Here’s a quick rundown of just some of the glaring conceptual errors that make Howard’s model pseudoscientific gibberish, according to chemists:
- His calculations treat protons, neutrons, and electron shells as interchangeable and completely ignore their distinct quantum properties crucial in chemistry.
- It makes unfounded assumptions equating the electrostatic forces involved in atomic bonding with electromagnetic forces of gravity, which are completely different phenomena.
- His formulas rely on multiplying protons, neutrons, and arbitrary coordinates, which makes no sense mathematically or scientifically.
- In several places, his arithmetic is simply wrong, miscalculating and misrepresenting the values for atomic weights or charges of various elements.
- His periodic table rearranges elements in ways that completely contradict their known, experimentally proven chemical behaviors and electron configurations.
In short, Howard’s entire construct lacks any basis in quantum physics, atomic theory, or the empirical principles of chemistry that form the foundation of the universally accepted standard periodic table model used in science for over a century. His “unified truth” rests on a nonsensical mathematical framework disconnected from the actual chemical properties that define the elements.
So while Howard asserts his table is more elegant and harmonious than the “outdated” current model, the overwhelming expert consensus is that his “universal truth” is simply a garbled mess of flawed calculations and misunderstandings of basic chemical concepts like valence electrons and isotopes that betrays a complete lack of expertise in the subject.
Not Actively Harmful, But Highlights Need for STEM Literacy
Despite its glaring inaccuracies, Howard’s quixotic periodic table crusade is not an inherently dangerous line of thinking for society. It does not promote any hateful ideologies, violence, or destructive conspiracy theories. While pushing pseudoscience can undermine trust in real science, Howard does not seem to actually have a dedicated following or fringe movement built around this idea beyond his own eccentric musings.
The biggest issue is that Howard appears to fundamentally misunderstand – and is misrepresenting – very basic established chemistry and physics in a way that could misinform fence-sitters or science novices who don’t know better. It highlights the ongoing need for better science literacy and critical thinking about separating evidence-based knowledge from pet theories or misguided personal beliefs marketed as grand truths.
Importantly, Howard’s periodic table rewrite will have absolutely zero functional impact on the chemistry being practiced and chemical elements being added to the real, constantly evolving periodic table by researchers adhering to quantum theory. His layperson’s notion was dead on arrival from a factual standpoint.
While physicists and chemists should absolutely continue refuting Howard’s discredited formulas, at the end of the day it amounts to an actor dabbling well outside of his depth in a specialized scientific arena with little actual capacity to do any substantive harm. It rings more like a confused, misplaced attempt to find meaning and order in the universe rather than a truly dangerous antiscience ideology.
Howard may truly believe he has stumbled upon profound hidden wisdom that chemists are arrogantly ignoring. But based on the evidence, he’s simply fallen into the trap of assigning profound significance to superficial numerical patterns that actually have no deeper meaning or basis in reality when it comes to chemistry’s intricacies.
Embrace the Healthy Skepticism of the Scientific Method
For concerned champions of evidence-based science education, Howard’s public promotion of his flawed chemistry/physics insights may be disappointing coming from a prominent celebrity with a large platform and following. However, it also reaffirms the crucial importance of healthy skepticism and falsifiable standards that are pillars of the scientific method as it is taught in schools.
The great beauty of science is that it must be grounded in cold, hard proof tested and replicated through rigorous experimentation – not based on mathematically questionable hunches or feelings of personal enlightenment about nature’s order. Luckily, the systems and norms are in place to quickly evaluate, scrutinize, and ultimately dismiss claims like Howard’s periodic table that fall astronomically short of these standards.
While it’s certainly Howard’s personal prerogative to peacefully put forth his idiosyncratic take on scientific truth for consideration, the system worked properly in that his claims were swiftly and decisively reviewed, debunked by experts referencing established laws of physics and chemistry, and dismissed as holding no scientific merit. This rigorous process acts as a safeguard against pseudoscientific beliefs or misinformation gaining undue legitimacy.
Embracing healthy skepticism toward bold claims not rooted in disciplined experimentation and hard data is precisely what science education should ingrain. Howard’s fringe ideology may not pose a grave risk, but it usefully demonstrates how crucial it is to have a scientifically literate populace that can smell the fusty whiff of pseudoscience and separated kooky theories from established fact.
In the end, the silver lining of celebrity pseudoscience cases like Howard’s periodic table is that they emphasize the critical need for society to have an intellectually curious spirit open to genuine new discoveries proven according to the scientific method, not simply entertained on the basis of seeming elegant or harmonious on a superficial gut level. A healthy degree of skepticism, not blind acceptance of what sounds profound, is a core tenet we’d all benefit from embracing more in the era of widespread misinformation.
Hey there! We hope you love our fitness programs and the products we recommend. Just so you know, Symku Blog is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you. It helps us keep the lights on. Thanks.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this discussion is for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended as medical or professional advice. Only a qualified health professional can determine what practices are suitable for your individual needs and abilities.