Chemistry Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientists, academics, teachers, and students in the field of chemistry. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I've been looking over the lists of materials used together to make metallic glass.
Is it purely coincidental that if you round up/down any decimals from the atomic weight of elements used to construct metallic glass, you're always very close to +-1 (if not at) a prime number for the atomic weight of each element?
Yes, it’s coincidental. There is no expectation that prime (or near-prime) atomic weight means anything for the element itself. In fact, your affirmation is not even true: on the list given by Wikipedia, the first two examples are:
Let's go further. For a given element, how likely is it that its atomic weight, rounded, is within ±1 of a prime number? Well, atomic weights are relatively low integers, and prime numbers are plenty numerous among small integers, so it is relatively frequent. The answer can be computed with Mathematica:
weights = {#, Round@ElementData[#, "AtomicWeight"]} & /@ ElementData[All];
f[i_] := PrimeQ[i] || PrimeQ[i - 1] || PrimeQ[i + 1]
res = {f[#[[2]]], #[[1]]} & /@ weights
Select[res, ! #[[1]] &][[All, 2]]
74 out of the first 118 elements turn out to satisfy your “near-prime atomic weight” condition, which is 63%. This seems high, but it's not: if you do the same check, not only for atomic weights, but for all integers below 200, 61% of them are near-prime:
Total@Boole@Select[f /@ Range[1, 200], # &]
