- Thank you received: 0
Heavy element production in MM
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
20 years 9 months ago #8162
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
On the subject of electron configurations and there resulting oxidation states. I hold correct the current theories that are responsible for building the electron configuration and giving an element its chemistry. They are:
1. Aufbau principle: (this means literally from german, to build up.) The electrons must completely fill an orbit before beginning to fill the next.
2. Pauli exclusion principle: This states that paired electron will have opposite spin
3. Octet rule: that the electrons will obey the geographical placements as governed by attractions and repulsion.
The chemistry of the atom is in its electron configuration. Nitrogen has multiple oxidation states because and can form many different compounds because of the affinity of the those electrons to share, be stolen, or be given based on the element(s) brought into reaction with it coupled with the appropriate energetic scheme. The atom is neutral in charge therefore the number of electrons must equal the number of protons. If neutrons are protons in disquise than that is fine; but, it doesn't change the behavior of the element in chemical reactions. Only nuclear force can reorient the nucleus. This is manifest be the proof that no known chemical reaction can make a nucleus change, i.e. reacting an element with another cannot make it radioactive or disappear (alchemists tried this and failed).
Heisenberg, electron cloud, electron wave, all of those theories don't really matter. I say this because our understanding of the chemistry of the elements is independant of the reasonings behind those reactions. Simple but elegant experiments performed by the true fathers of chemistry from Lavoisier to Seaborg have shown us that empirical data from chemical research can accurately predict the behavior of chemicals.
Yes, some elements have many oxidation states, but remember that electrons can bond in at least 4 known ways and quite possibly more as the elements get larger. Fundamental prinicples such as electron repulsion forces, van der Waals forces, electron screening (shielding) effects, etc. have predicted what we know about chemistry today. I am comfortable with this because chemists right now are using these modelling techniques to predict previously unmanufactured chemicals. When they see a chemical from these models, they can make that chemical and the properties they predicted are exhibited in the new molecule. That is significant proof that the current model, while incomplete, does at least seem to be on the right course. While all theory is open to assault, it is reviewed and tested and accepted by a scientific community that is generally accessible, at least in the particular field of chemistry, where a spirit of new discovery still exists. Astronomy and cosmology does have lots of room for holes in theories, but the tangible theories here on earth, where materials are constantly tested, imaged, and investigated, tends to make theories that are more sound. Notice that the theories in chemistry most under debate are ones proposed by physicists. I am sure many will scoff at my windy rhetoric here, but try to not take theory so lightly, it is never one persons whim when it is proposed. Also remember that the bakelite material that we are typing on was one of those predicted chemicals, properties, measurements and all.
MV
1. Aufbau principle: (this means literally from german, to build up.) The electrons must completely fill an orbit before beginning to fill the next.
2. Pauli exclusion principle: This states that paired electron will have opposite spin
3. Octet rule: that the electrons will obey the geographical placements as governed by attractions and repulsion.
The chemistry of the atom is in its electron configuration. Nitrogen has multiple oxidation states because and can form many different compounds because of the affinity of the those electrons to share, be stolen, or be given based on the element(s) brought into reaction with it coupled with the appropriate energetic scheme. The atom is neutral in charge therefore the number of electrons must equal the number of protons. If neutrons are protons in disquise than that is fine; but, it doesn't change the behavior of the element in chemical reactions. Only nuclear force can reorient the nucleus. This is manifest be the proof that no known chemical reaction can make a nucleus change, i.e. reacting an element with another cannot make it radioactive or disappear (alchemists tried this and failed).
Heisenberg, electron cloud, electron wave, all of those theories don't really matter. I say this because our understanding of the chemistry of the elements is independant of the reasonings behind those reactions. Simple but elegant experiments performed by the true fathers of chemistry from Lavoisier to Seaborg have shown us that empirical data from chemical research can accurately predict the behavior of chemicals.
Yes, some elements have many oxidation states, but remember that electrons can bond in at least 4 known ways and quite possibly more as the elements get larger. Fundamental prinicples such as electron repulsion forces, van der Waals forces, electron screening (shielding) effects, etc. have predicted what we know about chemistry today. I am comfortable with this because chemists right now are using these modelling techniques to predict previously unmanufactured chemicals. When they see a chemical from these models, they can make that chemical and the properties they predicted are exhibited in the new molecule. That is significant proof that the current model, while incomplete, does at least seem to be on the right course. While all theory is open to assault, it is reviewed and tested and accepted by a scientific community that is generally accessible, at least in the particular field of chemistry, where a spirit of new discovery still exists. Astronomy and cosmology does have lots of room for holes in theories, but the tangible theories here on earth, where materials are constantly tested, imaged, and investigated, tends to make theories that are more sound. Notice that the theories in chemistry most under debate are ones proposed by physicists. I am sure many will scoff at my windy rhetoric here, but try to not take theory so lightly, it is never one persons whim when it is proposed. Also remember that the bakelite material that we are typing on was one of those predicted chemicals, properties, measurements and all.
MV
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 9 months ago #8163
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
EBEX, Since neutrons don't contain electrons very long and decay into protons how is it neutrons are quite stable in the atom or are they? One of many unnoticed facts about how things work at nanoscale.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 9 months ago #8575
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
MV, For the most part I agree with you about chemistry and remember its while roots are in alchemy the data is from hard work of gifted people over several centuries. You don't have anything like tthat in physics today and in fact physics is more like alchemy than chemistry what with all the slight of hand math that is done.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 9 months ago #8269
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
Your take on physics Jim is more correct than many know. Physics has a lot of abstract ideas, but remember many of the observations made in physics are interpreted under the constraints that proponents of the MM and other theories are at odds with. Einstein's only Nobel is related to chemistry for the Photoelectric effect. Relativity (no Nobel). In fact, special relativity was published with no references, it is hard to conduct peer review when the claim that no peers exist is made. I am very confident concerning the chemistry I explained earlier today in the context of a telephone conversation I had since then with an old professor of mine. He is comfortable with the electron configuration information I placed on here since he codiscovered several compounds with odd oxidation states, and they predicted them beforehand. That is powerful support for a theory when prediction predates discovery. The scientific method - you gotta love it. []
MV
MV
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 9 months ago #8164
by Jim
I'm not uo to date with advances in chemistry-one issue I've had with models is how energy is looked on in different chemistry perspectives such as thermal or electric modeling(I hope that makes sense). The energy it seems to me is in the form of photons in all cases, but in models this is obscured by the use of heat units better left to mechanical engineers and electric units that are better but still cloud the picture for me. So, I would like to see energy measured in units of natural charge aka,ev. The unit I prefer is the unit of charge or 1.6x10E-19J as the base energy unit. I think if this was done the field of chemistry benefit since I suspect that unit is a natural and fundmental constant. The use of electrons moving about in models can be replaced by photons that transport energy in all cases.
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
I'm not uo to date with advances in chemistry-one issue I've had with models is how energy is looked on in different chemistry perspectives such as thermal or electric modeling(I hope that makes sense). The energy it seems to me is in the form of photons in all cases, but in models this is obscured by the use of heat units better left to mechanical engineers and electric units that are better but still cloud the picture for me. So, I would like to see energy measured in units of natural charge aka,ev. The unit I prefer is the unit of charge or 1.6x10E-19J as the base energy unit. I think if this was done the field of chemistry benefit since I suspect that unit is a natural and fundmental constant. The use of electrons moving about in models can be replaced by photons that transport energy in all cases.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 9 months ago #8165
by EBTX
Replied by EBTX on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... how is it neutrons are quite stable in the atom or are they?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't remember the reason ... so I usually go to "Hyperphysics"
Here it is ...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/deuteron.html#c1
I don't remember the reason ... so I usually go to "Hyperphysics"
Here it is ...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/deuteron.html#c1
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.526 seconds