/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11504025
So how come it seems like Atomic Numbers increment so perfectly, on the periodic table of elements.
Certain assumptions I would have as an outsider:
>It would be the most remarkable if every single element had the exact same number of protons. The fact that they all have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT numbers of protons (and thus different atomic numbers), seems to me, no less remarkable. Why is this?
>The fact that from end to end, every atomic number is filled is also remarkable. One would expect there to be a few empty slots. Historically were there empty slots in the periodic table of elements? Looking at the included picture, and seeing Element 116 (year 2004), and Element 118 (year 2006), where all the Element 117 inbetween was discovered AFTER 2006, it seems to me that at 2006, there must have been a blank slot on the periodic table of elements for four years.

Are new elements being discovered in linear order, of atomic number, given that they have to be engineered in labs where they can not sustain continued existence for more than a few seconds, and that the higher the atomic number, the more difficult it is to engineer.

And why is the proton number the main focus of the periodic table of elements, and not the number of electrons or neutrons?