Recently, the chemistry department conducted intensive research into the fundamental properties of “Transition Metals” (TMs). They published their findings in a research paper titled “An introduction to the chemistry of transition elements” which was so intriguing, it quickly made its way into the hands of over a thousand students.

The paper was largely a run of the mill text but demonstrated some findings that were previously unknown to mankind. Through a systematic analysis of the properties of transition metals, they were able to challenge established scientific thought.

The most notable of their discoveries is the “3d electron sentience hypothesis”. As it turns out, the electrons in the 3d orbital are in fact fully aware of which atom they are being compared with. Due to their self awareness, they are able to provide varying amounts of shielding.

The theory was developed after the researchers noticed that transition metals had smaller atomic radii than the group 2 element Calcium but within the transition elements, radii remained approximately constant.

They explained this by theorising that the valence electrons in fact provide poor shielding in TMs when they are compared to calcium but changes its mind and provides “considerable” shielding when they are compared amongst themselves. Naturally, this does not make the slightest bit of sense in the realm of established scientific thought, and must therefore be attributed to the electrons being living creatures that span all of time and space.

Further evidence is provided by the discerning and fickle nature of these electrons as they fill up the 4s shells “whenever they feel like it”. The researchers have largely dismissed queries about the true nature of electrons (and whether they dream of electric sheep), stating the matter is “complex” and reminding students of the ominously close reckoning.

The sheer number of mind-boggling exceptions that exist has bred a sinking suspicion amongst the student population. Several foolhardy students have speculated about the existence of a “theory of everything” and even gone so far as to suggest chemists simply “make things up as they go along and invent exceptions when they make a wrong turn”. They likened empirical research and theory formulation to a “schizophrenic” GP essay where the concessions and counter-arguments outweigh the thesis.

Another incredible discovery made was on the destruction of energy in complexes. Apparently, energy lost in absorption of photons is never returned. Several chemists we spoke to attributed the phenomenon to “resonance” but this is believed to be the standard fallback answer for most strange chemistry questions.

Perhaps the most relevant of the theories outlined however, is the energy repulsion theorem they put forward. It postulates that the 3d electrons actually repel the 4s energy level to a higher state. While this sounds absurd to some due to the distinctly different shapes of the levels and the fact that one does not simply repel energy, the department has reiterated that it stands behind this theory. This is also a possible explanation for the repulsion of students’ energy during chemistry lectures.

Analysts have pointed out that a similar theory may effectively describe what exactly makes something an “activating group”. Prominent researchers have already suggested that this would signal the end for the JML (just memorise lah) framework presently adopted. We will continue to report on the latest developments in scientific research.