Where I can see examples of electron orbits of some atoms? Or at least hydrogen orbits with 1, 2, 3 or more electrons etc.?
You realize you probably could have found them on the internet in the time it took to create this poll
QUOTE (theory_of_nj+Jun 23 2008, 04:20 PM)
You realize you probably could have found them on the internet in the time it took to create this poll
Please find to me if you so smart!
Please find to me if you so smart!
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 23 2008, 08:07 AM)
hydrogen orbits with 1, 2, 3 or more electrons etc.?
Hydrogen with 3 electrons? You've been sniffing glue again, haven't you.
Hydrogen with 3 electrons? You've been sniffing glue again, haven't you.
QUOTE (barakn+Jun 23 2008, 04:38 PM)
Hydrogen with 3 electrons?
Why not? Charge still atracting, but two electrons in oposit places...
Anyway, give what you have. Show me this orbits (or probabilistic shells there can be each electron in each orbit). Don't say that electron don't have orbit established... All electrons still must have some 3D shells of each orbit, i would like to see it. Or sciencists too stupid and can't create such visual model of electrons orbits, but fluding incoherent bullshit about formules, chemistry and probabilities.
Why not? Charge still atracting, but two electrons in oposit places...
Anyway, give what you have. Show me this orbits (or probabilistic shells there can be each electron in each orbit). Don't say that electron don't have orbit established... All electrons still must have some 3D shells of each orbit, i would like to see it. Or sciencists too stupid and can't create such visual model of electrons orbits, but fluding incoherent bullshit about formules, chemistry and probabilities.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 23 2008, 03:07 PM)
Where I can see examples of electron orbits of some atoms? Or at least hydrogen orbits with 1, 2, 3 or more electrons etc.?
I told you this ages ago. Look up the solutions to the Associated Legendre Polynomials on Wiki or Mathworld.
I told you this ages ago. Look up the solutions to the Associated Legendre Polynomials on Wiki or Mathworld.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 23 2008, 05:54 PM)
I told you this ages ago. Look up the solutions to the Associated Legendre Polynomials on Wiki or Mathworld.
Is this electron orbits? How to understand it?
I saw only some 2D and 3D circles... How I must understand them? How I must interpretate them with each orbit and number of electrons in this orbit?
Is this electron orbits? How to understand it?
I saw only some 2D and 3D circles... How I must understand them? How I must interpretate them with each orbit and number of electrons in this orbit?
Strange, I type in 'electron orbits' and the first hit is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital Did you even Google for them David?
User posted image: User posted image
Each orbital is the region 2 electrons can exist in. Any more than 2 is precluded by the Exclusion Principle and the fact electrons only have spin 1/2. Each orbital is the level up from the previous.
The 1s is the lowest. The first two electrons reside here. The 2s, two more electrons. Then 2p, two more. etc etc. I don't remember the specific layout of the electrons, it's been almost a decade since I did A Level chemistry (**** that's depressing to say!).
User posted image: User posted image
Each orbital is the region 2 electrons can exist in. Any more than 2 is precluded by the Exclusion Principle and the fact electrons only have spin 1/2. Each orbital is the level up from the previous.
The 1s is the lowest. The first two electrons reside here. The 2s, two more electrons. Then 2p, two more. etc etc. I don't remember the specific layout of the electrons, it's been almost a decade since I did A Level chemistry (**** that's depressing to say!).
It seems, that there possible mpre than 2 electrons in each orbit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_electr...iguration_table ?
What supose to be this dark and brown colourse to mean? Or red and blue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Orbitals_table Is it orbits of electrons blue colour and transiting through red nuclears?
What supose to be this dark and brown colourse to mean? Or red and blue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Orbitals_table Is it orbits of electrons blue colour and transiting through red nuclears?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 23 2008, 07:57 PM)
It seems, that there possible mpre than 2 electrons in each orbit
You might want to learn basic high school chemistry.
You might want to learn basic high school chemistry.
So you can't explain what is mean blue and read overlaping? Is't becouse visauly imposible to demonstrate for example two shells or at aleast firstly one and secondly another on that (in two separate images)?
okey, maybe you right, only two electrons can be and wikipedia somtimes lieing and can't not bullshitly to explain...
okey, maybe you right, only two electrons can be and wikipedia somtimes lieing and can't not bullshitly to explain...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 06:20 AM)
So you can't explain what is mean blue and read overlaping? Is't becouse visauly imposible to demonstrate for example two shells or at aleast firstly one and secondly another on that (in two separate images)?
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Orbitals_table . There's a max of 1 diagram for s. For the d, p and f levels there are 3, 5 and 7 lots of diagrams, each one with two colours. There's an island of stability (the Noble Gases) at 2, 8, 18 and 32 electrons.
2*s = 2
2*s + 2*d = 8
2*s+2*d+2*p = 18
2*s+2*d+2*p+2*f=32
s=1, p=3, d=5, f=7; why 2*s + 2*d = 8, 2*1+2*5=12;
2*s+2*d+2*p = 18, 2*1+2*5+2*3=18 - right.
2*s+2*d+2*p+2*f=32, 2*1+2*5+2*3+2*7=32.
second is wrong, maybe you mean 2*s+2*p=8?
s=1, p=3, d=5, f=7; why 2*s + 2*d = 8, 2*1+2*5=12;
2*s+2*d+2*p = 18, 2*1+2*5+2*3=18 - right.
2*s+2*d+2*p+2*f=32, 2*1+2*5+2*3+2*7=32.
second is wrong, maybe you mean 2*s+2*p=8?
There's a max of 2 colours per diagram and there's 1, 3, 5 and 7 diagrams per orbit type. Didn't it strike you as odd that there's extra diagrams?
You probably mean, two colours is like one electron in orbit or two electrons in orbit? No? And 1, 3, 5 and 7 diagrams per orbit type probably is orbital angular moment of each level (like graound state level, excided and so on..). On the over hand 1,3,5,7 is m and it's probably 'direction' of electron motion. It's hard connection between l and n... If some of them is orbit level and some over... BTW, if schrodinger equation wasn't invented does then this would be possible to establish this stable numbers of electrons like 2,8,18,32? And do in chemistry playing role only this knowledges of stable number of electrons? It's seems taht shrodinger equation is used even in classical electrodynamics or not?
It's seems tath srodinger equation not easy one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-like_atom .
Can you say, what is mean big L with indexese 2l+1 and n-l-1 http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/d/6/8d6...ecf3a5f5992.png ?
I don't imagine how they solve this shrodinger equations of angular and radial and separation angular... Probably try many many variants or just use cousal math for fast solution? If there need all live to understand schrodinger equation then how is possible to understand chemical interactions between electrons to for example invent some drugs-cures? I bet that chemicists don't understand schrodinger equation and only know some simple reactions of some matterials. Maybe even sciencists don't know how DNA is interconected with electrons becouse it is too hard for them, but they know molecules masses atoms masses etc and know it from electron micrsocope images etc. Thus they ambitious about curing DNA is talks about somthing that they even don't understand and they trying to invent drugs with random reactions... I think probably schrodinger equation must to change if there is two interconected atoms through electrons.
And BTW, does it possible to describe electron orbits from only knowing of electron pauli principle that there can be only 2 electrons in each orbit, orbit are quantized and electrons and nuclears have spins and electrons can have two oposit to each over flying directions. I think from this properties it's should be able to understand all this shapes of orbits and huge number of them posiblities, which probably somehow depends on coloumb forces and spins. Why imposile to cure some diseases? Becouse it is violation principle that two atoms can't be in same place 
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Orbitals_table . There's a max of 1 diagram for s. For the d, p and f levels there are 3, 5 and 7 lots of diagrams, each one with two colours. There's an island of stability (the Noble Gases) at 2, 8, 18 and 32 electrons.
2*s = 2
2*s + 2*d = 8
2*s+2*d+2*p = 18
2*s+2*d+2*p+2*f=32
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 06:20 AM)
okey, maybe you right, only two electrons can be and wikipedia somtimes lieing and can't not bullshitly to explain...
No, I'm right and Wikipedia is right. There's a max of 2 colours per diagram and there's 1, 3, 5 and 7 diagrams per orbit type. Didn't it strike you as odd that there's extra diagrams?
If you knew about the Schrodinger equation you'd know you can account for those using the Associated Legendre Polynomials. Precisely what I've been telling you for months. Historically they were found by such things as Zeeman Splitting. The different effect magnetic fields have on orbits show the different spin structures on the energy levels.
You never stop to think it might be because you don't understand it. And yet you're so vocal in your "The Schrodinger equation is wrong!" whining.
Heck, it was something on the final sheet of the QM I help teach! A 1st course in QM covers it. You can barely type English, which you say is your first language, never mind do physics.
If you knew about the Schrodinger equation you'd know you can account for those using the Associated Legendre Polynomials. Precisely what I've been telling you for months. Historically they were found by such things as Zeeman Splitting. The different effect magnetic fields have on orbits show the different spin structures on the energy levels.
You never stop to think it might be because you don't understand it. And yet you're so vocal in your "The Schrodinger equation is wrong!" whining.
Heck, it was something on the final sheet of the QM I help teach! A 1st course in QM covers it. You can barely type English, which you say is your first language, never mind do physics.
QUOTE
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Orbitals_table . There's a max of 1 diagram for s. For the d, p and f levels there are 3, 5 and 7 lots of diagrams, each one with two colours. There's an island of stability (the Noble Gases) at 2, 8, 18 and 32 electrons.
2*s = 2
2*s + 2*d = 8
2*s+2*d+2*p = 18
2*s+2*d+2*p+2*f=32
2*s = 2
2*s + 2*d = 8
2*s+2*d+2*p = 18
2*s+2*d+2*p+2*f=32
s=1, p=3, d=5, f=7; why 2*s + 2*d = 8, 2*1+2*5=12;
2*s+2*d+2*p = 18, 2*1+2*5+2*3=18 - right.
2*s+2*d+2*p+2*f=32, 2*1+2*5+2*3+2*7=32.
second is wrong, maybe you mean 2*s+2*p=8?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Orbitals_table . There's a max of 1 diagram for s. For the d, p and f levels there are 3, 5 and 7 lots of diagrams, each one with two colours. There's an island of stability (the Noble Gases) at 2, 8, 18 and 32 electrons. 2*s = 2 2*s + 2*d = 8 2*s+2*d+2*p = 18 2*s+2*d+2*p+2*f=32 |
s=1, p=3, d=5, f=7; why 2*s + 2*d = 8, 2*1+2*5=12;
2*s+2*d+2*p = 18, 2*1+2*5+2*3=18 - right.
2*s+2*d+2*p+2*f=32, 2*1+2*5+2*3+2*7=32.
second is wrong, maybe you mean 2*s+2*p=8?
There's a max of 2 colours per diagram and there's 1, 3, 5 and 7 diagrams per orbit type. Didn't it strike you as odd that there's extra diagrams?
You probably mean, two colours is like one electron in orbit or two electrons in orbit? No? And 1, 3, 5 and 7 diagrams per orbit type probably is orbital angular moment of each level (like graound state level, excided and so on..). On the over hand 1,3,5,7 is m and it's probably 'direction' of electron motion. It's hard connection between l and n... If some of them is orbit level and some over... BTW, if schrodinger equation wasn't invented does then this would be possible to establish this stable numbers of electrons like 2,8,18,32? And do in chemistry playing role only this knowledges of stable number of electrons? It's seems taht shrodinger equation is used even in classical electrodynamics or not?
It's seems tath srodinger equation not easy one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-like_atom .
Can you say, what is mean big L with indexese 2l+1 and n-l-1 http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/d/6/8d6...ecf3a5f5992.png ?
I don't imagine how they solve this shrodinger equations of angular and radial and separation angular... Probably try many many variants or just use cousal math for fast solution? If there need all live to understand schrodinger equation then how is possible to understand chemical interactions between electrons to for example invent some drugs-cures? I bet that chemicists don't understand schrodinger equation and only know some simple reactions of some matterials. Maybe even sciencists don't know how DNA is interconected with electrons becouse it is too hard for them, but they know molecules masses atoms masses etc and know it from electron micrsocope images etc. Thus they ambitious about curing DNA is talks about somthing that they even don't understand and they trying to invent drugs with random reactions... I think probably schrodinger equation must to change if there is two interconected atoms through electrons.
And BTW, does it possible to describe electron orbits from only knowing of electron pauli principle that there can be only 2 electrons in each orbit, orbit are quantized and electrons and nuclears have spins and electrons can have two oposit to each over flying directions. I think from this properties it's should be able to understand all this shapes of orbits and huge number of them posiblities, which probably somehow depends on coloumb forces and spins. Why imposile to cure some diseases? Becouse it is violation principle that two atoms can't be in same place
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 08:07 AM)
second is wrong, maybe you mean 2*s+2*p=8?
Yes, p.
Yes, p.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 08:07 AM)
You probably mean, two colours is like one electron in orbit or two electrons in orbit? No? And 1, 3, 5 and 7 diagrams per orbit type probably is orbital angular moment of each level (like graound state level, excided and so on..).
2 colours = 2 electrons. And n=energy state, l and m = magnetic effects.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 08:07 AM)
BTW, if schrodinger equation wasn't invented does then this would be possible to establish this stable numbers of electrons like 2,8,18,32? And do in chemistry playing role only this knowledges of stable number of electrons? It's seems taht shrodinger equation is used even in classical electrodynamics or not?
You can work out the electron orbits from chemistry. From that you can work out the particular form of the potential you put into the Schrodinger equation and then the Shrodinger equation explains all the orbits, including all the ones you cannot measure.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 08:07 AM)
I don't imagine how they solve this shrodinger equations of angular and radial and separation angular..
It's easy, it reduces to the Associated Legendre Equation which is a Sturm-Liouville equation and there's a ton of maths known about them, including that they must have particular forms of their solutions, which are precisely the electron orbits.
It's not very complicated maths. 2nd year stuff. I'll upload some lecture notes I have on it later.
It's not very complicated maths. 2nd year stuff. I'll upload some lecture notes I have on it later.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 08:07 AM)
I bet that chemicists don't understand schrodinger equation and only know some simple reactions of some matterials.
You've said this before and Trippy, a chemist, corrected you. I have a few friends who did chemistry for their degree and they did considerable amounts of quantum mechanics. The Schrodinger equation is one of the first things they learnt about.
So you saying that flying electron generating magnetic field of bigger force than coloumb force of electron itself. Logicaly, becosue electron charge is the same in motion and not. And if this charge moving faster and faster magnetic field becoming stronger and stronger... So magnetic field which creating electron is atraction/pushing force, which depending on two ingredint-forces electric charge and speed of this charge. Thus magnetic force is I guess about 100 times stronger than electric force and magnetic force of flying around proton electron is two times smaller than spin force and is only 3-10 times smaller than strong force of nuclears! But in electrons configuration probably there is minimum alignent of electron magnetism hiding (not sure how is is with spins). I WONDER DO THERE IS POSSIBLE TO CALCULATE ELECTRONS POSSIBLE ORBITS IF THERE IS ONLY KNONW CHARGE QUANTIZATION FORCE AND SPINS? Do is possible to explain everything with borth-like quantization of orbits and all over proabbilities is is the spin effect? Logical, ha? Electrons can be in undeterminded spins and thus spins must somehow to create electrons shells probabilites, becouse spin can be obserc\ved only in quantized state... magnetism of electrons orbital moments probably there also playing this quantization probabilistic shells role by afecting spins (electrons intrisic amgnetic moments).
So you saying that flying electron generating magnetic field of bigger force than coloumb force of electron itself. Logicaly, becosue electron charge is the same in motion and not. And if this charge moving faster and faster magnetic field becoming stronger and stronger... So magnetic field which creating electron is atraction/pushing force, which depending on two ingredint-forces electric charge and speed of this charge. Thus magnetic force is I guess about 100 times stronger than electric force and magnetic force of flying around proton electron is two times smaller than spin force and is only 3-10 times smaller than strong force of nuclears! But in electrons configuration probably there is minimum alignent of electron magnetism hiding (not sure how is is with spins). I WONDER DO THERE IS POSSIBLE TO CALCULATE ELECTRONS POSSIBLE ORBITS IF THERE IS ONLY KNONW CHARGE QUANTIZATION FORCE AND SPINS? Do is possible to explain everything with borth-like quantization of orbits and all over proabbilities is is the spin effect? Logical, ha? Electrons can be in undeterminded spins and thus spins must somehow to create electrons shells probabilites, becouse spin can be obserc\ved only in quantized state... magnetism of electrons orbital moments probably there also playing this quantization probabilistic shells role by afecting spins (electrons intrisic amgnetic moments).
It's not very complicated maths. 2nd year stuff.
I doubt that most studients of even lectures able to integrate or solve a little bit more dificult integrals. Thus they understanding of schrodinger equation, I guess is only words like "I read, sow this - I completly know it!" ...
Of course it is solved and probably now all students solving it on computers... I wonder does schrodinger equation for over atoms with bigger Z number have the same schrodinger equation or maybe for them orbits even don't calculate becouse it is too hard? And how about molecules, does interconetction of few atoms in molecules have own schrodinger equation?
So your statment don't match with alphanumeric statment, that two colourse represent two electrons
So your statment don't match with alphanumeric statment, that two colourse represent two electrons
Usually the surfaces that we see when looking at pictures of electron orbitals represent the 90% or 95% surfaces - in otherwords, there's a 90% or 95% chance of finding the electron in question within that surface.
Why only 90-95% of surface is cahnce to find electron, why not 100%? Is electron is (can be obtained/finded) in some over hidden spots, which hidding shels surfaces? Or surfaces have some somwhere 2D dimensions surfaceses, which are inside those shels and ortogonal (90^o)...?
You mean "than"? So chemistry is hard from realitivity? But realitivity isn't hard part and interesting one... I think chemistry is so complex in quantum mechanical sense, that only 10% of chemistry is used from quantum mechanic solutions.
You mean "than"? So chemistry is hard from realitivity? But realitivity isn't hard part and interesting one... I think chemistry is so complex in quantum mechanical sense, that only 10% of chemistry is used from quantum mechanic solutions.
Using quantum mechanics we can predict the colours of dies before we make them, as well as explaining why antibiotics work (among othe rthings).
You mean diesies? Who tell to you that they works? Only bacteriofags-viruses works naturaly, which can kill backteries - all over stuf won't work.
The most important thing is that it works, just need try, after each simple try you can learn that you will learn from schrodinger equation after many years. Chemicists still unable to somthing invent from chemistry becouse need to solve very complex schrodinger equation, which is too hard for them for more complex atoms interconections. So chemistry can't predict atoms interconections, but this can do only schrodinger quation. Probably for helium atom and interconections of atoms equation should be astronomicaly hard even for computers. So probably there is very hard to simulate few molecules of 2-100 atoms. I even don't alking about macromolecuels like DNA or proteins. But they have some segments structure. All?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 08:07 AM)
Why imposile to cure some diseases? Becouse it is violation principle that two atoms can't be in same place
Yes, why use experiments to improve your understanding of the universe.
You obviously don't...
You obviously don't...
QUOTE
And n=energy state, l and m = magnetic effects.
So you saying that flying electron generating magnetic field of bigger force than coloumb force of electron itself. Logicaly, becosue electron charge is the same in motion and not. And if this charge moving faster and faster magnetic field becoming stronger and stronger... So magnetic field which creating electron is atraction/pushing force, which depending on two ingredint-forces electric charge and speed of this charge. Thus magnetic force is I guess about 100 times stronger than electric force and magnetic force of flying around proton electron is two times smaller than spin force and is only 3-10 times smaller than strong force of nuclears! But in electrons configuration probably there is minimum alignent of electron magnetism hiding (not sure how is is with spins). I WONDER DO THERE IS POSSIBLE TO CALCULATE ELECTRONS POSSIBLE ORBITS IF THERE IS ONLY KNONW CHARGE QUANTIZATION FORCE AND SPINS? Do is possible to explain everything with borth-like quantization of orbits and all over proabbilities is is the spin effect? Logical, ha? Electrons can be in undeterminded spins and thus spins must somehow to create electrons shells probabilites, becouse spin can be obserc\ved only in quantized state... magnetism of electrons orbital moments probably there also playing this quantization probabilistic shells role by afecting spins (electrons intrisic amgnetic moments).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And n=energy state, l and m = magnetic effects. |
So you saying that flying electron generating magnetic field of bigger force than coloumb force of electron itself. Logicaly, becosue electron charge is the same in motion and not. And if this charge moving faster and faster magnetic field becoming stronger and stronger... So magnetic field which creating electron is atraction/pushing force, which depending on two ingredint-forces electric charge and speed of this charge. Thus magnetic force is I guess about 100 times stronger than electric force and magnetic force of flying around proton electron is two times smaller than spin force and is only 3-10 times smaller than strong force of nuclears! But in electrons configuration probably there is minimum alignent of electron magnetism hiding (not sure how is is with spins). I WONDER DO THERE IS POSSIBLE TO CALCULATE ELECTRONS POSSIBLE ORBITS IF THERE IS ONLY KNONW CHARGE QUANTIZATION FORCE AND SPINS? Do is possible to explain everything with borth-like quantization of orbits and all over proabbilities is is the spin effect? Logical, ha? Electrons can be in undeterminded spins and thus spins must somehow to create electrons shells probabilites, becouse spin can be obserc\ved only in quantized state... magnetism of electrons orbital moments probably there also playing this quantization probabilistic shells role by afecting spins (electrons intrisic amgnetic moments).
It's not very complicated maths. 2nd year stuff.
I doubt that most studients of even lectures able to integrate or solve a little bit more dificult integrals. Thus they understanding of schrodinger equation, I guess is only words like "I read, sow this - I completly know it!"
...Of course it is solved and probably now all students solving it on computers... I wonder does schrodinger equation for over atoms with bigger Z number have the same schrodinger equation or maybe for them orbits even don't calculate becouse it is too hard? And how about molecules, does interconetction of few atoms in molecules have own schrodinger equation?
The colours represent the phase of the electron.
Electrons can have 2 possible spin configurations (hence there being two electrons in each orbital).
Spin-up, and Spin-down.
Usually the surfaces that we see when looking at pictures of electron orbitals represent the 90% or 95% surfaces - in otherwords, there's a 90% or 95% chance of finding the electron in question within that surface.
And no DavidD, Chemistry is infinitely more complex then your mind could grasp, as are the applications of relativity and Quantum Mechanics within it.
Combining them we can explain the colour of gold.
Using quantum mechanics we can predict the colours of dies before we make them, as well as explaining why antibiotics work (among othe rthings).
Electrons can have 2 possible spin configurations (hence there being two electrons in each orbital).
Spin-up, and Spin-down.
Usually the surfaces that we see when looking at pictures of electron orbitals represent the 90% or 95% surfaces - in otherwords, there's a 90% or 95% chance of finding the electron in question within that surface.
And no DavidD, Chemistry is infinitely more complex then your mind could grasp, as are the applications of relativity and Quantum Mechanics within it.
Combining them we can explain the colour of gold.
Using quantum mechanics we can predict the colours of dies before we make them, as well as explaining why antibiotics work (among othe rthings).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 10:12 PM)
I doubt that most studients of even lectures able to integrate or solve a little bit more dificult integrals. Thus they understanding of schrodinger equation, I guess is only words like "I read, sow this - I completly know it!" ...
Of course it is solved and probably now all students solving it on computers... I wonder does schrodinger equation for over atoms with bigger Z number have the same schrodinger equation or maybe for them orbits even don't calculate becouse it is too hard? And how about molecules, does interconetction of few atoms in molecules have own schrodinger equation?
You almost sound like you're talking about molecular orbital theory incidentally, the onlt coherrent way of explaining (for example) the shape of benzene and the paramagnetism of liquid oxygen.
(valence bond theory IIRC fails to predict the two unpaired electrons in an oxygen molecule).
...Of course it is solved and probably now all students solving it on computers... I wonder does schrodinger equation for over atoms with bigger Z number have the same schrodinger equation or maybe for them orbits even don't calculate becouse it is too hard? And how about molecules, does interconetction of few atoms in molecules have own schrodinger equation?
You almost sound like you're talking about molecular orbital theory incidentally, the onlt coherrent way of explaining (for example) the shape of benzene and the paramagnetism of liquid oxygen.
(valence bond theory IIRC fails to predict the two unpaired electrons in an oxygen molecule).
QUOTE
The colours represent the phase of the electron.
So your statment don't match with alphanumeric statment, that two colourse represent two electrons
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The colours represent the phase of the electron. |
So your statment don't match with alphanumeric statment, that two colourse represent two electrons
Usually the surfaces that we see when looking at pictures of electron orbitals represent the 90% or 95% surfaces - in otherwords, there's a 90% or 95% chance of finding the electron in question within that surface.
Why only 90-95% of surface is cahnce to find electron, why not 100%? Is electron is (can be obtained/finded) in some over hidden spots, which hidding shels surfaces? Or surfaces have some somwhere 2D dimensions surfaceses, which are inside those shels and ortogonal (90^o)...?
QUOTE
And no DavidD, Chemistry is infinitely more complex then your mind could grasp, as are the applications of relativity and Quantum Mechanics within it.
You mean "than"? So chemistry is hard from realitivity? But realitivity isn't hard part and interesting one... I think chemistry is so complex in quantum mechanical sense, that only 10% of chemistry is used from quantum mechanic solutions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And no DavidD, Chemistry is infinitely more complex then your mind could grasp, as are the applications of relativity and Quantum Mechanics within it. |
You mean "than"? So chemistry is hard from realitivity? But realitivity isn't hard part and interesting one... I think chemistry is so complex in quantum mechanical sense, that only 10% of chemistry is used from quantum mechanic solutions.
Using quantum mechanics we can predict the colours of dies before we make them, as well as explaining why antibiotics work (among othe rthings).
You mean diesies? Who tell to you that they works? Only bacteriofags-viruses works naturaly, which can kill backteries - all over stuf won't work.
QUOTE
(valence bond theory IIRC fails to predict the two unpaired electrons in an oxygen molecule).
The most important thing is that it works, just need try, after each simple try you can learn that you will learn from schrodinger equation after many years. Chemicists still unable to somthing invent from chemistry becouse need to solve very complex schrodinger equation, which is too hard for them for more complex atoms interconections. So chemistry can't predict atoms interconections, but this can do only schrodinger quation. Probably for helium atom and interconections of atoms equation should be astronomicaly hard even for computers. So probably there is very hard to simulate few molecules of 2-100 atoms. I even don't alking about macromolecuels like DNA or proteins. But they have some segments structure. All?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 11:27 PM)
So your statment don't match with alphanumeric statment, that two colourse represent two electrons
Yes it does. You just ignored the part where I explained why there were two electrons, and linked my statement to Alphanumerics. The most obvious example of how ridiculous you're being here is the 1s orbital. It's a sphere, of one phase, it can still hold two electrons through spin pairing.
Yes it does. You just ignored the part where I explained why there were two electrons, and linked my statement to Alphanumerics. The most obvious example of how ridiculous you're being here is the 1s orbital. It's a sphere, of one phase, it can still hold two electrons through spin pairing.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 11:27 PM)
Why only 90-95% of surface is cahnce to find electron, why not 100%? Is electron is (can be obtained/finded) in some over hidden spots, which hidding shels surfaces? Or surfaces have some somwhere 2D dimensions surfaceses, which are inside those shels and ortogonal (90^o)...?
Because there is no 100% surface. There is a chance (albeit vanishingly small) that one of the electrons that makes up the keyboard in front of you could wander upto several k's from the keyboard, and then return to it's orbital. It's not very probable, but it is possible.
Because there is no 100% surface. There is a chance (albeit vanishingly small) that one of the electrons that makes up the keyboard in front of you could wander upto several k's from the keyboard, and then return to it's orbital. It's not very probable, but it is possible.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 11:27 PM)
You mean "than"? So chemistry is hard from realitivity? But realitivity isn't hard part and interesting one... I think chemistry is so complex in quantum mechanical sense, that only 10% of chemistry is used from quantum mechanic solutions.
This statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are chemists who deal with relativity and quantum mechanics - usually they end up working in materials science developing materials with novel properties (conducting polymers, for example).
This statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are chemists who deal with relativity and quantum mechanics - usually they end up working in materials science developing materials with novel properties (conducting polymers, for example).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 11:27 PM)
You mean diesies? Who tell to you that they works? Only bacteriofags-viruses works naturaly, which can kill backteries - all over stuf won't work.
No, I mean antibiotics. Molecular orbital theory, which uses quantum mechanics directly allows us to explain, for example, the mechanism behind penicillin, and how penicillin resistant bacteria evolved, it also points to ways in which they might be combated - although there's still a lot of trial and error involved in these things because of unknowns about how the body (and living organisms) react to these things - hence the existence of combanitorial chemistry. But there are many other things it helps us explain - like how heamoglobin works, why the oxygen in heamoglobin has 4 (and only 4) possible orientations, and Carbon monoxide binds so much stronger to haemoglobin then Oxygen does (the reasons are all related).
No, I mean antibiotics. Molecular orbital theory, which uses quantum mechanics directly allows us to explain, for example, the mechanism behind penicillin, and how penicillin resistant bacteria evolved, it also points to ways in which they might be combated - although there's still a lot of trial and error involved in these things because of unknowns about how the body (and living organisms) react to these things - hence the existence of combanitorial chemistry. But there are many other things it helps us explain - like how heamoglobin works, why the oxygen in heamoglobin has 4 (and only 4) possible orientations, and Carbon monoxide binds so much stronger to haemoglobin then Oxygen does (the reasons are all related).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 11:27 PM)
The most important thing is that it works, just need try, after each simple try you can learn that you will learn from schrodinger equation after many years.
Untrue. I've already illustrated several things in chemistry that have been explained using Quantum Mechanics. The computer your typing your posts on is another example.
Untrue. I've already illustrated several things in chemistry that have been explained using Quantum Mechanics. The computer your typing your posts on is another example.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 11:27 PM)
Chemicists still unable to somthing invent from chemistry becouse need to solve very complex schrodinger equation, which is too hard for them for more complex atoms interconections.
Untrue - there's just generally less press coverage of breakthroughs in chemistry then there is of breakthroughs in physics, because physics is sexier, and more contraversial.
Untrue - there's just generally less press coverage of breakthroughs in chemistry then there is of breakthroughs in physics, because physics is sexier, and more contraversial.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 11:27 PM)
So chemistry can't predict atoms interconections, but this can do only schrodinger quation.
This sentence doesn;t make a whole lot of sense. If your suggesting that chemistry is simply another branch of physics? You're wrong in many respects. There are many chemists that go about their daily research with never having dealt directly with the schroedinger wave equation. That's why chemistry (essentially) has two branches Pure Chemistry, and Applied Chemistry.
What then means red ball http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t...bital_n1_l0.png ? This is one electron or another side is blue? What you mean phase? And how would know two electrons possition in probability on 3D shell? They must be somthing like in oposit directions (if they are only tow), becouse of spins. IS it right? Do you mean phase like wave phase? but why then there is only two phases instead wave? MAybe phase also quantized ?
What then means red ball http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t...bital_n1_l0.png ? This is one electron or another side is blue? What you mean phase? And how would know two electrons possition in probability on 3D shell? They must be somthing like in oposit directions (if they are only tow), becouse of spins. IS it right? Do you mean phase like wave phase? but why then there is only two phases instead wave? MAybe phase also quantized ?
Because there is no 100% surface. There is a chance (albeit vanishingly small) that one of the electrons that makes up the keyboard in front of you could wander upto several k's from the keyboard, and then return to it's orbital. It's not very probable, but it is possible.
This is coming from schrodinger equation? Or from imagination? Why should electron jump from one orbit to another if he don't absorb photon? OR it is jumping from one phorm shell to another? Strange...
Pencilin was invented in ~1900 before schrodinger equation, like I understand it from infections...
What is strange, that how chemics experimentaly verifying that hemoglobin reacting in this way, oxygen in this way? Isn't single molecule is too small to analize it all properties?
You saying chemistry many can explain, but this is not thanks to schrodinger equation, but to valentic, covalentinc, chargentic properties of electrons and ions.
What is 3D box? Is it atom suraounded by over atoms or just atom in 3D and atom in 1D with SCHR. EQ. is iliusion or somthing? Or you want to say, that schrodinger equation was solved only for only hydrogen or for over atoms only with one electron? But hydrogen can have more than one electron (probably infinity), the same for over atoms, but I nowhere sow schrodinger equation for helium atom or for iraon atom or any over. IS such scrodinger equationwas solved at all?
What is 3D box? Is it atom suraounded by over atoms or just atom in 3D and atom in 1D with SCHR. EQ. is iliusion or somthing? Or you want to say, that schrodinger equation was solved only for only hydrogen or for over atoms only with one electron? But hydrogen can have more than one electron (probably infinity), the same for over atoms, but I nowhere sow schrodinger equation for helium atom or for iraon atom or any over. IS such scrodinger equationwas solved at all?
It can still be applied to macro-molecules, although there are still a few mysteries around - like how individual amino acids add their properties together to give the bulk properties, and structure of enzymes.
Maybe unprecision of schrodinger equation don't leting to do it? Physics or schemics saying that schrodinger equation must be longer, but some less cousal parts is removed like removed 3 from x^2+2x+3. OR maybe schrodinger equation can explain only hydrogen atom and for another atoms is maybe only a little bit moer precise than Borh postulates, btu still very unprecisly? Maybe your mentioned 'chemistry' about hemoglobin and oxygen can be explained with Borh model? Antibiotics invention is probably mroe random invention, which not always working maybe... Why now don't need any antibiotics? Or some infections by bacteries can be cured with pure chmistry - antibiotics? It's seems that human have cells itself that can kill many bacteries and maybe even viruses or chemicals, probably some bacteries more sensitive to some chemicals than human cells... Like now no pandemics, which probably must be able to cured with current antibiotics? OR just clear live don't creating such pandemics like under ~XIX age?
This sentence doesn;t make a whole lot of sense. If your suggesting that chemistry is simply another branch of physics? You're wrong in many respects. There are many chemists that go about their daily research with never having dealt directly with the schroedinger wave equation. That's why chemistry (essentially) has two branches Pure Chemistry, and Applied Chemistry.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 24 2008, 11:27 PM)
Probably for helium atom and interconections of atoms equation should be astronomicaly hard even for computers. So probably there is very hard to simulate few molecules of 2-100 atoms. I even don't alking about macromolecuels like DNA or proteins. But they have some segments structure. All?
Irrelevant. While it may be true that the particle in a 3-d box model hasn't (to my knowledge) been solved for more then a one electron system, this does not limit it's validity.
It can still be applied to macro-molecules, although there are still a few mysteries around - like how individual amino acids add their properties together to give the bulk properties, and structure of enzymes.
Irrelevant. While it may be true that the particle in a 3-d box model hasn't (to my knowledge) been solved for more then a one electron system, this does not limit it's validity.
It can still be applied to macro-molecules, although there are still a few mysteries around - like how individual amino acids add their properties together to give the bulk properties, and structure of enzymes.
Schrondinger equation is wrong!
QUOTE
Yes it does. You just ignored the part where I explained why there were two electrons, and linked my statement to Alphanumerics. The most obvious example of how ridiculous you're being here is the 1s orbital. It's a sphere, of one phase, it can still hold two electrons through spin pairing.
What then means red ball http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t...bital_n1_l0.png ? This is one electron or another side is blue? What you mean phase? And how would know two electrons possition in probability on 3D shell? They must be somthing like in oposit directions (if they are only tow), becouse of spins. IS it right? Do you mean phase like wave phase? but why then there is only two phases instead wave? MAybe phase also quantized
?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes it does. You just ignored the part where I explained why there were two electrons, and linked my statement to Alphanumerics. The most obvious example of how ridiculous you're being here is the 1s orbital. It's a sphere, of one phase, it can still hold two electrons through spin pairing. |
What then means red ball http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t...bital_n1_l0.png ? This is one electron or another side is blue? What you mean phase? And how would know two electrons possition in probability on 3D shell? They must be somthing like in oposit directions (if they are only tow), becouse of spins. IS it right? Do you mean phase like wave phase? but why then there is only two phases instead wave? MAybe phase also quantized
?Because there is no 100% surface. There is a chance (albeit vanishingly small) that one of the electrons that makes up the keyboard in front of you could wander upto several k's from the keyboard, and then return to it's orbital. It's not very probable, but it is possible.
This is coming from schrodinger equation? Or from imagination? Why should electron jump from one orbit to another if he don't absorb photon? OR it is jumping from one phorm shell to another? Strange...
Pencilin was invented in ~1900 before schrodinger equation, like I understand it from infections...
What is strange, that how chemics experimentaly verifying that hemoglobin reacting in this way, oxygen in this way? Isn't single molecule is too small to analize it all properties?
You saying chemistry many can explain, but this is not thanks to schrodinger equation, but to valentic, covalentinc, chargentic properties of electrons and ions.
QUOTE
Irrelevant. While it may be true that the particle in a 3-d box model hasn't (to my knowledge) been solved for more then a one electron system, this does not limit it's validity.
What is 3D box? Is it atom suraounded by over atoms or just atom in 3D and atom in 1D with SCHR. EQ. is iliusion or somthing? Or you want to say, that schrodinger equation was solved only for only hydrogen or for over atoms only with one electron? But hydrogen can have more than one electron (probably infinity), the same for over atoms, but I nowhere sow schrodinger equation for helium atom or for iraon atom or any over. IS such scrodinger equationwas solved at all?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Irrelevant. While it may be true that the particle in a 3-d box model hasn't (to my knowledge) been solved for more then a one electron system, this does not limit it's validity. |
What is 3D box? Is it atom suraounded by over atoms or just atom in 3D and atom in 1D with SCHR. EQ. is iliusion or somthing? Or you want to say, that schrodinger equation was solved only for only hydrogen or for over atoms only with one electron? But hydrogen can have more than one electron (probably infinity), the same for over atoms, but I nowhere sow schrodinger equation for helium atom or for iraon atom or any over. IS such scrodinger equationwas solved at all?
It can still be applied to macro-molecules, although there are still a few mysteries around - like how individual amino acids add their properties together to give the bulk properties, and structure of enzymes.
Maybe unprecision of schrodinger equation don't leting to do it? Physics or schemics saying that schrodinger equation must be longer, but some less cousal parts is removed like removed 3 from x^2+2x+3. OR maybe schrodinger equation can explain only hydrogen atom and for another atoms is maybe only a little bit moer precise than Borh postulates, btu still very unprecisly? Maybe your mentioned 'chemistry' about hemoglobin and oxygen can be explained with Borh model? Antibiotics invention is probably mroe random invention, which not always working maybe... Why now don't need any antibiotics? Or some infections by bacteries can be cured with pure chmistry - antibiotics? It's seems that human have cells itself that can kill many bacteries and maybe even viruses or chemicals, probably some bacteries more sensitive to some chemicals than human cells... Like now no pandemics, which probably must be able to cured with current antibiotics? OR just clear live don't creating such pandemics like under ~XIX age?
QUOTE (wanchung+Jun 25 2008, 01:53 PM)
Schrondinger equation is wrong!
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
I feel another migraine, and blood nose coming on.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
What then means red ball http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t...bital_n1_l0.png ?
The red ball represents (most likely) given the m=0 caption on it, the '1s' orbital.
It is the lowest energy orbital that exists.
It represents a spherical orbital that has one phase, and one phase only.
It is capable of holding only two electrons (one spin up, one spin down).
It means that if we assign a sign to the wave function, the sign of the wave function through the entire orbital is the same (positive). The orbital is spherically symmetrical, and contains no nodal surfaces.
The 2s orbital has a nodal surface, but it is still spherically symmetrical.
The red ball represents (most likely) given the m=0 caption on it, the '1s' orbital.
It is the lowest energy orbital that exists.
It represents a spherical orbital that has one phase, and one phase only.
It is capable of holding only two electrons (one spin up, one spin down).
It means that if we assign a sign to the wave function, the sign of the wave function through the entire orbital is the same (positive). The orbital is spherically symmetrical, and contains no nodal surfaces.
The 2s orbital has a nodal surface, but it is still spherically symmetrical.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
This is one electron or another side is blue?
IN Hydrogen it contains one electron, anything heavier then hydrogen it has two electrons.
IN Hydrogen it contains one electron, anything heavier then hydrogen it has two electrons.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
What you mean phase?
Phase as in wave phase, two signs (hence two colours + & -) it represents the sign of the wave function. Think of it in terms of a standing wave on a guitar string. The fundamental mode has one phase, the first harmonic has two.
Phase as in wave phase, two signs (hence two colours + & -) it represents the sign of the wave function. Think of it in terms of a standing wave on a guitar string. The fundamental mode has one phase, the first harmonic has two.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
And how would know two electrons possition in probability on 3D shell?
This makes very little sense.
This makes very little sense.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
They must be somthing like in oposit directions (if they are only tow), becouse of spins. IS it right?
Yes, This part you have right. Bound electrons have two 4 Quantum numbers that describe their state.
n = the principal quantum number, this is where the 1 in 1s comes from. n=1, 2, 3...
l = the angular quantum number, and it varies from 0, 1, 2... ...,n-1
ml = the magnetic quantum number, and varies from -l,...,0,...,l
And finally spin, which is +1/2 or -1/2
Add to that the pauli exclusion principle which states that no two electrons can have the same quantum numbers - thus, 2 electrons per orbital.
Yes, This part you have right. Bound electrons have two 4 Quantum numbers that describe their state.
n = the principal quantum number, this is where the 1 in 1s comes from. n=1, 2, 3...
l = the angular quantum number, and it varies from 0, 1, 2... ...,n-1
ml = the magnetic quantum number, and varies from -l,...,0,...,l
And finally spin, which is +1/2 or -1/2
Add to that the pauli exclusion principle which states that no two electrons can have the same quantum numbers - thus, 2 electrons per orbital.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
Do you mean phase like wave phase? but why then there is only two phases instead wave?
Yes.
Yes.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
MAybe phase also quantized ?
there's only two possibilities, + or -.
?there's only two possibilities, + or -.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
This is coming from schrodinger equation? Or from imagination?
From the equation.
From the equation.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
Why should electron jump from one orbit to another if he don't absorb photon? OR it is jumping from one phorm shell to another? Strange...
Nobody said anything about jumping orbitals, it simply moves further away.
Nobody said anything about jumping orbitals, it simply moves further away.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
Pencilin was invented in ~1900 before schrodinger equation, like I understand it from infections...
Irrelevant, knowledge of it's electronic sturcture, and fronteir orbitals allows us to understand it's mechanisms of action.
Irrelevant, knowledge of it's electronic sturcture, and fronteir orbitals allows us to understand it's mechanisms of action.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
What is strange, that how chemics experimentaly verifying that hemoglobin reacting in this way, oxygen in this way? Isn't single molecule is too small to analize it all properties?
It's called x-ray crystallography, it allows us to measure, and compute the exact positions of atoms (representing areas of electron density, which diffract x-rays) in a molecule, doing so shows us the oxygen molecule is always oriented to be in one of 4 positions.
It's called x-ray crystallography, it allows us to measure, and compute the exact positions of atoms (representing areas of electron density, which diffract x-rays) in a molecule, doing so shows us the oxygen molecule is always oriented to be in one of 4 positions.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
You saying chemistry many can explain, but this is not thanks to schrodinger equation, but to valentic, covalentinc, chargentic properties of electrons and ions.
The understanding of which was developed both experimentally and with the wave equation, in fact the wave equation provided us with an understanding that we didn't previously have.
The understanding of which was developed both experimentally and with the wave equation, in fact the wave equation provided us with an understanding that we didn't previously have.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
What is 3D box?
It's an expression, a way of describing the situation, i'm not sure I can be bothered explaining it in detail. From what I can recall, and from what I saw when I glanced at it, the description on this page is fairly accurate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box .
It's an expression, a way of describing the situation, i'm not sure I can be bothered explaining it in detail. From what I can recall, and from what I saw when I glanced at it, the description on this page is fairly accurate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box .
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
Is it atom suraounded by over atoms or just atom in 3D and atom in 1D with SCHR. EQ. is iliusion or somthing?
No, it's not an illusion, and we're considering an isolated atom (unless we're talking about Molecular Orbitals.
No, it's not an illusion, and we're considering an isolated atom (unless we're talking about Molecular Orbitals.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
Or you want to say, that schrodinger equation was solved only for only hydrogen or for over atoms only with one electron?
The particle in a 3d-box model has (to my knowledge) only been solved for a one proton - one electron scenario, however experimental evidence tells us that a two electron two proton situation is the same.
The particle in a 3d-box model has (to my knowledge) only been solved for a one proton - one electron scenario, however experimental evidence tells us that a two electron two proton situation is the same.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
But hydrogen can have more than one electron (probably infinity), the same for over atoms, but I nowhere sow schrodinger equation for helium atom or for iraon atom or any over. IS such scrodinger equationwas solved at all?
The one proton - one electron scenario has been solved, as I said above, extrapolating the results is valid, this has been verified experimentally. The 1s orbital in an Iron atom looks the same as a 1s orbital in hydrogen, only smaller (stronger electrostatic attraction).
The one proton - one electron scenario has been solved, as I said above, extrapolating the results is valid, this has been verified experimentally. The 1s orbital in an Iron atom looks the same as a 1s orbital in hydrogen, only smaller (stronger electrostatic attraction).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
Maybe unprecision of schrodinger equation don't leting to do it?
This makes no sense.
This makes no sense.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
Physics or schemics saying that schrodinger equation must be longer, but some less cousal parts is removed like removed 3 from x^2+2x+3.
Still makes no sense.
Still makes no sense.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
OR maybe schrodinger equation can explain only hydrogen atom and for another atoms is maybe only a little bit moer precise than Borh postulates, btu still very unprecisly?
No, you're wrong, as i've already detailed, experimental evidence contradicts what you're saying.
No, you're wrong, as i've already detailed, experimental evidence contradicts what you're saying.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
Maybe your mentioned 'chemistry' about hemoglobin and oxygen can be explained with Borh model?
Nope.
Nope.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
Antibiotics invention is probably mroe random invention, which not always working maybe...
Irrelevant, as I have stated repeatedly, it allows us to better understand the mechanisms involved.
Irrelevant, as I have stated repeatedly, it allows us to better understand the mechanisms involved.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
Why now don't need any antibiotics?
I didn't say anything even remotely like this.
I didn't say anything even remotely like this.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
Or some infections by bacteries can be cured with pure chmistry - antibiotics?
No.
No.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
It's seems that human have cells itself that can kill many bacteries and maybe even viruses or chemicals, probably some bacteries more sensitive to some chemicals than human cells...
Irrelevant - you're rambling.
Irrelevant - you're rambling.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
Like now no pandemics, which probably must be able to cured with current antibiotics? OR just clear live don't creating such pandemics like under ~XIX age?
Again, you're rambling, this is irrelevant.
Again, you're rambling, this is irrelevant.
Just verify this sentence. Does hydrogen atom (proton) can have infinity many electrons (if there no nay matter aaround)? And does say Iron or over atom also can have infinity many orbits of electrons? Or this imposible to answer, becosue experimental conditions don't leting it, except one +/- electron ionization?
And you saying that hydrogen and heavier atoms like iron have the same electrons orbits, shells structure, but only of diferent distance? But isn't it ridiculous, becouse if there is very much... I don't know, can you answer?
About phases. I guess electron some constant time being in one phase and over time in over phase (in red or in blue), but do two electrons always coexist in opist pahses each in same orbit?
Also isn't here must be some spins afecting efect on orbits over electrons and nuclears and they electrons quantization of spin must be not always so very 'pure'?.. Spin must probably be somthing like probabilisticly acting... Or it is too hard this all compare in schrodinger equation and sciencist don't care...? Becouse if supose there is two electrons in oposit places with oposit spins and nuclear spins is aligned like 'providers' to mcuh with electrons monopole... and if there is in over orbit also two electrons, which is in place in which pusshing charge force then spins must somehow "missprotest" of electrons or magnetic power "wining" over charge power (becouse it about 100 times bigger), but still spins must be somthing missmatch and become probabilistic... Maybe scrodinger equation this and describing... and nobody realy imaginary don't understand how this going on...
About antibiotics I saying, that they usefulnes can be doubful and I don't trust 95% of it's helpnes.
Unprecision of schrodinger equation may lead to conculsion, that interactions between bigger molecules never can be understooded!
That's strange, difraction verification can be a little bit doubful.... How oxygen molecule can be orientated in one of positions? Probabilistic electrons shells job from sch. eq.? This probably mean, that srodinger equation for more molecules is solved? Or one atom and interconected atoms schrodinger equation of each atom alsways is the same like in separate atom and only electrons shells creating some probabilistic posibilities of interaction? But then this is strange, that over atoms don't have impact over considered atom electrons shells and schrodinger equation...
After what time atom changing electrons shell type? and itself "shape of charge" ?
And you saying that hydrogen and heavier atoms like iron have the same electrons orbits, shells structure, but only of diferent distance? But isn't it ridiculous, becouse if there is very much... I don't know, can you answer?
About phases. I guess electron some constant time being in one phase and over time in over phase (in red or in blue), but do two electrons always coexist in opist pahses each in same orbit?
Also isn't here must be some spins afecting efect on orbits over electrons and nuclears and they electrons quantization of spin must be not always so very 'pure'?.. Spin must probably be somthing like probabilisticly acting... Or it is too hard this all compare in schrodinger equation and sciencist don't care...? Becouse if supose there is two electrons in oposit places with oposit spins and nuclear spins is aligned like 'providers' to mcuh with electrons monopole... and if there is in over orbit also two electrons, which is in place in which pusshing charge force then spins must somehow "missprotest" of electrons or magnetic power "wining" over charge power (becouse it about 100 times bigger), but still spins must be somthing missmatch and become probabilistic... Maybe scrodinger equation this and describing... and nobody realy imaginary don't understand how this going on...
About antibiotics I saying, that they usefulnes can be doubful and I don't trust 95% of it's helpnes.
Unprecision of schrodinger equation may lead to conculsion, that interactions between bigger molecules never can be understooded!
QUOTE
It's called x-ray crystallography, it allows us to measure, and compute the exact positions of atoms (representing areas of electron density, which diffract x-rays) in a molecule, doing so shows us the oxygen molecule is always oriented to be in one of 4 positions.
That's strange, difraction verification can be a little bit doubful.... How oxygen molecule can be orientated in one of positions? Probabilistic electrons shells job from sch. eq.? This probably mean, that srodinger equation for more molecules is solved? Or one atom and interconected atoms schrodinger equation of each atom alsways is the same like in separate atom and only electrons shells creating some probabilistic posibilities of interaction? But then this is strange, that over atoms don't have impact over considered atom electrons shells and schrodinger equation...
After what time atom changing electrons shell type? and itself "shape of charge" ?
Not only Schrodinger but also Trippy is wrong!
QUOTE (wanchung+Jun 25 2008, 09:27 PM)
Not only Schrodinger but also Trippy is wrong!
Wrong again chicken brains.
Wrong again chicken brains.
HaHa,
Trippy's brain is wrong!
Kidding!
Trippy's brain is wrong!
Kidding!
Please quantify "Wrong". Is it completely useless at modelling any system? Does it manage to do say 10 different systems to within 50% of the measured values? 10%? 1%? 50 different systems? 0.001%?
It's important to be precise. After all, we know Newtonian physics is 'wrong' in the sense we have a superior theory to it which explains everything Newton could and more and more accurately and yet engineers building bridges, NASA physicists sending a rocket to Mars and aeroplane designers still us Newton's dynamics. Why? Because except when you're looking at an accuracy of say 0.001%, Newton is 'right'.
So can you quantify how wrong is 'wrong'?
It's important to be precise. After all, we know Newtonian physics is 'wrong' in the sense we have a superior theory to it which explains everything Newton could and more and more accurately and yet engineers building bridges, NASA physicists sending a rocket to Mars and aeroplane designers still us Newton's dynamics. Why? Because except when you're looking at an accuracy of say 0.001%, Newton is 'right'.
So can you quantify how wrong is 'wrong'?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
Just verify this sentence. Does hydrogen atom (proton) can have infinity many electrons (if there no nay matter aaround)?
In essence, yes, I think so, there's no reason (that I can recall) that you can't keep filling the levels until you reach the continuum, electron-electron interactions are one of the things that complicate the maths for the two electron - one proton system making it unsolvable (so in essence, no).
In essence, yes, I think so, there's no reason (that I can recall) that you can't keep filling the levels until you reach the continuum, electron-electron interactions are one of the things that complicate the maths for the two electron - one proton system making it unsolvable (so in essence, no).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
And does say Iron or over atom also can have infinity many orbits of electrons?
See above.
See above.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
Or this imposible to answer, becosue experimental conditions don't leting it, except one +/- electron ionization?
There are experimental limits on how many electrons you can stick onto, or strip off any atom. It's a matter of energetics, and how much energy you have available.
There are experimental limits on how many electrons you can stick onto, or strip off any atom. It's a matter of energetics, and how much energy you have available.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
And you saying that hydrogen and heavier atoms like iron have the same electrons orbits, shells structure, but only of diferent distance?
In essence, yes, and this is something that can be proven experimentally - for example, we find that C(-IV), C(IV), He(0), and H(-1) (for example) all have the same orbital shapes.
In essence, yes, and this is something that can be proven experimentally - for example, we find that C(-IV), C(IV), He(0), and H(-1) (for example) all have the same orbital shapes.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
But isn't it ridiculous, becouse if there is very much... I don't know, can you answer?
Perhaps if you don't understand the theory, or haven't studied chemistry, but otherwise, no, not really.
Think of it this way. Why should they be different? What would make them different?
Aside from the number of nodal surfaces, why should 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, or 5s be different in shape?
Why should Mn(IV) have a different orbital shape to V(0)?
They both have the same number of electrons in them, the only difference is in the number of protons they have.
Perhaps if you don't understand the theory, or haven't studied chemistry, but otherwise, no, not really.
Think of it this way. Why should they be different? What would make them different?
Aside from the number of nodal surfaces, why should 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, or 5s be different in shape?
Why should Mn(IV) have a different orbital shape to V(0)?
They both have the same number of electrons in them, the only difference is in the number of protons they have.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
About phases. I guess electron some constant time being in one phase and over time in over phase (in red or in blue), but do two electrons always coexist in opist pahses each in same orbit?
It's a little more complicated then that, but in essence, yes.
It's a little more complicated then that, but in essence, yes.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
Also isn't here must be some spins afecting efect on orbits over electrons and nuclears and they electrons quantization of spin must be not always so very 'pure'?..
Nope, spin is a function of the particle itself, my recollection is that it's a function of symmetry, although Alphanumeric might be able to elaborate on that further.
But in essence, no, spin is quantized, and (for electrons) it is always spin half. For all fermions, they have non integer spins (n/2).
Nope, spin is a function of the particle itself, my recollection is that it's a function of symmetry, although Alphanumeric might be able to elaborate on that further.
But in essence, no, spin is quantized, and (for electrons) it is always spin half. For all fermions, they have non integer spins (n/2).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
Spin must probably be somthing like probabilisticly acting... Or it is too hard this all compare in schrodinger equation and sciencist don't care...?
Nope, spin is a measured property, and it's quantized. Ironically, some atomic nuclei can be regarded as composite Bosons, while all baryons are fermions, and some nuclei are composite fermions (one example being Carbon 12).
Nope, spin is a measured property, and it's quantized. Ironically, some atomic nuclei can be regarded as composite Bosons, while all baryons are fermions, and some nuclei are composite fermions (one example being Carbon 12).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
Becouse if supose there is two electrons in oposit places with oposit spins and nuclear spins is aligned like 'providers' to mcuh with electrons monopole... and if there is in over orbit also two electrons, which is in place in which pusshing charge force then spins must somehow "missprotest" of electrons or magnetic power "wining" over charge power (becouse it about 100 times bigger), but still spins must be somthing missmatch and become probabilistic... Maybe scrodinger equation this and describing... and nobody realy imaginary don't understand how this going on...
This paragraph comes across as largely gibberish.
Is spin random? Can it be anything other then +1/2 or -1/2 for an electron? No.
The schroedinger wave equation doesnot take spin-spin interactions between electrons into account, nor does it take electrostatic repulsion into account, these fall under the category of the interactions that I've already mentioned.
It's not that they don't understand it. It's not that they can't take it into account in the schroedinger equation, it's just that doing so makes the math so complicated that it's unsolvable.
This paragraph comes across as largely gibberish.
Is spin random? Can it be anything other then +1/2 or -1/2 for an electron? No.
The schroedinger wave equation doesnot take spin-spin interactions between electrons into account, nor does it take electrostatic repulsion into account, these fall under the category of the interactions that I've already mentioned.
It's not that they don't understand it. It's not that they can't take it into account in the schroedinger equation, it's just that doing so makes the math so complicated that it's unsolvable.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
About antibiotics I saying, that they usefulnes can be doubful and I don't trust 95% of it's helpnes.
Well, you'd be wrong. It's people not taking their full courses that causes the problem.
Well, you'd be wrong. It's people not taking their full courses that causes the problem.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
Unprecision of schrodinger equation may lead to conculsion, that interactions between bigger molecules never can be understooded!
The schroedinger equation (ironically) is no more complicated then modelling a guitar string (in fact, a guitar string is a useful analog to a particle in a 1d box).
The schroedinger equation (ironically) is no more complicated then modelling a guitar string (in fact, a guitar string is a useful analog to a particle in a 1d box).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
That's strange, difraction verification can be a little bit doubful....
No, especially not when combined with other analytical methods.
No, especially not when combined with other analytical methods.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
How oxygen molecule can be orientated in one of positions?
It's complicated, but it's to do with the way the oxygen molecule bonds to the Fe atom in the center of each monomer (remembering that Haemoglobin is a tetramer) and the way the oxygen molecule bonds with the molecules at the top of the cavity. Essentially, the shape of the cavity forces the HOMO of the oxygen to interact with the HOMO of the Iron atom, forcing electron density into an orbital that essentially destabilizes the oxygen molecule (part of the reason that Oxygen is so reactive). This causes the oxygen to be attracted to one of four hydrogen atoms that protude into the cavity, the hydrogen atoms, having a positive charge, help to stabilize the oxygen molecule. The end result, the Oxygen is weakly bound to the globin monomer, and is removable.
The difference between oxygen and carbon monoxide is that because the carbon monoxide is more tightly bound, it's actually smaller, and can assume an orientation (straight up and down) where the Iron atom is interacting with a bonding orbital, which stabilizes the entire molecule, and makes the bonds orders of magnitude stronger. This is also why the blood turns much redder (the Iron transition that gives the blood its red color is stronger).
It's complicated, but it's to do with the way the oxygen molecule bonds to the Fe atom in the center of each monomer (remembering that Haemoglobin is a tetramer) and the way the oxygen molecule bonds with the molecules at the top of the cavity. Essentially, the shape of the cavity forces the HOMO of the oxygen to interact with the HOMO of the Iron atom, forcing electron density into an orbital that essentially destabilizes the oxygen molecule (part of the reason that Oxygen is so reactive). This causes the oxygen to be attracted to one of four hydrogen atoms that protude into the cavity, the hydrogen atoms, having a positive charge, help to stabilize the oxygen molecule. The end result, the Oxygen is weakly bound to the globin monomer, and is removable.
The difference between oxygen and carbon monoxide is that because the carbon monoxide is more tightly bound, it's actually smaller, and can assume an orientation (straight up and down) where the Iron atom is interacting with a bonding orbital, which stabilizes the entire molecule, and makes the bonds orders of magnitude stronger. This is also why the blood turns much redder (the Iron transition that gives the blood its red color is stronger).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
Probabilistic electrons shells job from sch. eq.? This probably mean, that srodinger equation for more molecules is solved?
Yes and no, it's been solved for a one electron - one proton situation, it's been proven experimentaly that these results are comparable to the many electron - many proton situation. This can be extended further by the process of hybridization. Essentially, we can add the orbitals together, this is one of the places where phase becomes important.
Yes and no, it's been solved for a one electron - one proton situation, it's been proven experimentaly that these results are comparable to the many electron - many proton situation. This can be extended further by the process of hybridization. Essentially, we can add the orbitals together, this is one of the places where phase becomes important.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
Or one atom and interconected atoms schrodinger equation of each atom alsways is the same like in separate atom and only electrons shells creating some probabilistic posibilities of interaction?
Again, this makes almost no sense, and I think I might already have answered it anyway.
Again, this makes almost no sense, and I think I might already have answered it anyway.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
But then this is strange, that over atoms don't have impact over considered atom electrons shells and schrodinger equation...
Perhaps, if you haven't studied it, but not to me. Again, we're talking about something that has been demonstrated experimentally - transition metal chemistry is great for this.
Don't very good understood, yes or no? You wanna to say, that one proton can't have two electrons? Or you want to say, that one proton can have two electrons in principle, but schrodinger equation can't solve it?
Don't very good understood, yes or no? You wanna to say, that one proton can't have two electrons? Or you want to say, that one proton can have two electrons in principle, but schrodinger equation can't solve it?
Perhaps if you don't understand the theory, or haven't studied chemistry, but otherwise, no, not really.
Think of it this way. Why should they be different? What would make them different?
Aside from the number of nodal surfaces, why should 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, or 5s be different in shape?
Why should Mn(IV) have a different orbital shape to V(0)?
They both have the same number of electrons in them, the only difference is in the number of protons they have.
Diferent maybe becouse, coloumb force of negative electrons charge becoming too strong and ruling everything and protons charge is ignored almost. But maybe no,becosue electrons becoming farther from each over than from proton each... but outside electrons maybe must be very far or separated, i don't know, id don't know... Maybe you are right...
About spins I was mean, that for example there is 4 electrons, two of them closer to nuclear and two farther from nuclear adn then they spins somehow still afecting each over and then spins tend to align (or antialing) due to they quantizations, thus there must be some proababilistic mumbo jumbo and if you measure (if it is possible), then spins colpase to quantizet state from superposition...
So schrodinger equation is solved for hydrogen and this gives solutions for all over atoms and only need to coregate electrons distance?
But how about molecules? Does schrodinger equaiton for molecules is segmentation of many schrodinger equations for each atom or "new" scrodinger equation for molecule? I think probably segmentation of many atoms becouse schrodinger equation is somthing like quantized, no?
You probably mean, that in schrodinger equation mass, scharge, spin and over properties of particles is not precisly so schrodinger equation also not precisly? But I think, that there is work with symbols like m, e, Z and not with real values so scrodinger equation itself should be very precisly, but as I say, there saying some 'physicists' that scrodinger equation solution is unprecisly or somthing, maybe he mean unprecision of particles properties like charge value? Does scrodinger equation was solved with exact solution and only need to put all know values instead letters? Vibration of strings can't be solved of course do to errors and noise and so on...
Perhaps, if you haven't studied it, but not to me. Again, we're talking about something that has been demonstrated experimentally - transition metal chemistry is great for this.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 09:24 PM)
After what time atom changing electrons shell type? and itself "shape of charge" ?
When the energy of the next shell becomes lower then the shell being filled, or, when the current shell is filled.
There are some exceptions to this, but those exceptions are energetically more favourable.
When the energy of the next shell becomes lower then the shell being filled, or, when the current shell is filled.
There are some exceptions to this, but those exceptions are energetically more favourable.
QUOTE
In essence, yes, I think so, there's no reason (that I can recall) that you can't keep filling the levels until you reach the continuum, electron-electron interactions are one of the things that complicate the maths for the two electron - one proton system making it unsolvable (so in essence, no).
Don't very good understood, yes or no? You wanna to say, that one proton can't have two electrons? Or you want to say, that one proton can have two electrons in principle, but schrodinger equation can't solve it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In essence, yes, I think so, there's no reason (that I can recall) that you can't keep filling the levels until you reach the continuum, electron-electron interactions are one of the things that complicate the maths for the two electron - one proton system making it unsolvable (so in essence, no). |
Don't very good understood, yes or no? You wanna to say, that one proton can't have two electrons? Or you want to say, that one proton can have two electrons in principle, but schrodinger equation can't solve it?
Perhaps if you don't understand the theory, or haven't studied chemistry, but otherwise, no, not really.
Think of it this way. Why should they be different? What would make them different?
Aside from the number of nodal surfaces, why should 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, or 5s be different in shape?
Why should Mn(IV) have a different orbital shape to V(0)?
They both have the same number of electrons in them, the only difference is in the number of protons they have.
Diferent maybe becouse, coloumb force of negative electrons charge becoming too strong and ruling everything and protons charge is ignored almost. But maybe no,becosue electrons becoming farther from each over than from proton each... but outside electrons maybe must be very far or separated, i don't know, id don't know... Maybe you are right...
About spins I was mean, that for example there is 4 electrons, two of them closer to nuclear and two farther from nuclear adn then they spins somehow still afecting each over and then spins tend to align (or antialing) due to they quantizations, thus there must be some proababilistic mumbo jumbo and if you measure (if it is possible), then spins colpase to quantizet state from superposition...
So schrodinger equation is solved for hydrogen and this gives solutions for all over atoms and only need to coregate electrons distance?
But how about molecules? Does schrodinger equaiton for molecules is segmentation of many schrodinger equations for each atom or "new" scrodinger equation for molecule? I think probably segmentation of many atoms becouse schrodinger equation is somthing like quantized, no?
QUOTE
The schroedinger equation (ironically) is no more complicated then modelling a guitar string (in fact, a guitar string is a useful analog to a particle in a 1d box).
You probably mean, that in schrodinger equation mass, scharge, spin and over properties of particles is not precisly so schrodinger equation also not precisly? But I think, that there is work with symbols like m, e, Z and not with real values so scrodinger equation itself should be very precisly, but as I say, there saying some 'physicists' that scrodinger equation solution is unprecisly or somthing, maybe he mean unprecision of particles properties like charge value? Does scrodinger equation was solved with exact solution and only need to put all know values instead letters? Vibration of strings can't be solved of course do to errors and noise and so on...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 01:41 PM)
Don't very good understood, yes or no?
The problem is that you don't understand. In this thread you have repeated questions you have had answered before. You claimed not to know the solutions to the electron orbitals, Yet I had provided you with a lengthy explaination on precisely that previously. Heck, you'd even asked it twice. Both Trippy and I had previously corrected you about your comments on the Schrodinger equation and chemistry.
So either you don't understand or you're a troll.
The problem is that you don't understand. In this thread you have repeated questions you have had answered before. You claimed not to know the solutions to the electron orbitals, Yet I had provided you with a lengthy explaination on precisely that previously. Heck, you'd even asked it twice. Both Trippy and I had previously corrected you about your comments on the Schrodinger equation and chemistry.
So either you don't understand or you're a troll.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 25 2008, 01:41 PM)
Vibration of strings can't be solved of course do to errors and noise and so on...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/waveq.html#c2
Time and again you show you either do no research or you're too stupid to understand what a simple Google provides you.
Time and again you show you either do no research or you're too stupid to understand what a simple Google provides you.
So quantum number m represents orbits. Thus atom with say 12 protons have 6 orbits somthing like 2*s+2*d=12 electrons. Thus in orbit s there is 2 electrons and in orbits coctale d there is 10 electrons, this orbit d can be divided into 5 shells or somthing, which are like orbits. Maybe even half of those orbits have the same distance efrom nuclear...
This strings maybe have infinity many harmonics, so schrodinger equation perhaps also. I sow in math-phys book about strings and there is very long bullshit integration and derivation for some stupid strings vibrations and somthing, very hard solution, who care it, anyway? So probably if you will take string of guetar then physicaly mathematicaly even with ideal theoretical conditions-parameters imposible to solve such vibrating string of guetar equation, becouse of infinity harmonics, was I think tripy the same was mean for schrodinger equation and thus scrodinger equation is not precesly very if it is precisly at all! Becouse how I know from integration, it is imposible to predict what value bigger or smaller - less imprortant or more important will show up, thus schrodinger equation can be very very roughly and maybe able to explain only very primitive interactinos of molecules and for macromolecules maybe is totaly wrong!
This strings maybe have infinity many harmonics, so schrodinger equation perhaps also. I sow in math-phys book about strings and there is very long bullshit integration and derivation for some stupid strings vibrations and somthing, very hard solution, who care it, anyway? So probably if you will take string of guetar then physicaly mathematicaly even with ideal theoretical conditions-parameters imposible to solve such vibrating string of guetar equation, becouse of infinity harmonics, was I think tripy the same was mean for schrodinger equation and thus scrodinger equation is not precesly very if it is precisly at all! Becouse how I know from integration, it is imposible to predict what value bigger or smaller - less imprortant or more important will show up, thus schrodinger equation can be very very roughly and maybe able to explain only very primitive interactinos of molecules and for macromolecules maybe is totaly wrong!
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 12:41 AM)
Don't very good understood, yes or no? You wanna to say, that one proton can't have two electrons? Or you want to say, that one proton can have two electrons in principle, but schrodinger equation can't solve it?
Oh for the love of... I've already clearly and plainly answered that question. Go back and read through my posts again.
Oh for the love of... I've already clearly and plainly answered that question. Go back and read through my posts again.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 12:41 AM)
Diferent maybe becouse, coloumb force of negative electrons charge becoming too strong and ruling everything and protons charge is ignored almost. But maybe no,becosue electrons becoming farther from each over than from proton each...
No.
No.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 12:41 AM)
but outside electrons maybe must be very far or separated, i don't know, id don't know...
Yes.
Yes.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 12:41 AM)
Maybe you are right...
Yes.
Yes.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 12:41 AM)
About spins I was mean, that for example there is 4 electrons, two of them closer to nuclear and two farther from nuclear adn then they spins somehow still afecting each over and then spins tend to align (or antialing) due to they quantizations, thus there must be some proababilistic mumbo jumbo and if you measure (if it is possible), then spins colpase to quantizet state from superposition...
No. There is no probabilistic mumbojumbo. The situation you're talking about is analagous to Beryllium (4 protons, 4 electrons) All of Berylium's electrons occupy s orbitals (1s2 2s2). The only effect that core electrons have on valence electrons that anyone has been able to discern is to reduce the effective nuclear charge that the valence electrons see.
No. There is no probabilistic mumbojumbo. The situation you're talking about is analagous to Beryllium (4 protons, 4 electrons) All of Berylium's electrons occupy s orbitals (1s2 2s2). The only effect that core electrons have on valence electrons that anyone has been able to discern is to reduce the effective nuclear charge that the valence electrons see.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 12:41 AM)
So schrodinger equation is solved for hydrogen and this gives solutions for all over atoms and only need to coregate electrons distance?
I've already answered this.
I've already answered this.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 12:41 AM)
But how about molecules? Does schrodinger equaiton for molecules is segmentation of many schrodinger equations for each atom or "new" scrodinger equation for molecule?
This is, in essence what Molecular Orbitals are, and what hybridization means. Because the orbitals represent electron standing waves they can add to each other, constructively or destructively, to form molecular orbitals, some of which can result in electrons being delocalized over the entire length and breadth of a molecule.
In essence, yes, this means that the schroedinger equation for a molecule represents the sum of the equations of it's components.
This is, in essence what Molecular Orbitals are, and what hybridization means. Because the orbitals represent electron standing waves they can add to each other, constructively or destructively, to form molecular orbitals, some of which can result in electrons being delocalized over the entire length and breadth of a molecule.
In essence, yes, this means that the schroedinger equation for a molecule represents the sum of the equations of it's components.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 12:41 AM)
I think probably segmentation of many atoms becouse schrodinger equation is somthing like quantized, no?
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 12:41 AM)
You probably mean, that in schrodinger equation mass, scharge, spin and over properties of particles is not precisly so schrodinger equation also not precisly?
Spin, and charge are precise, discrete values. This is what quantization means.
Spin, and charge are precise, discrete values. This is what quantization means.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 12:41 AM)
But I think, that there is work with symbols like m, e, Z and not with real values so scrodinger equation itself should be very precisly, but as I say, there saying some 'physicists' that scrodinger equation solution is unprecisly or somthing, maybe he mean unprecision of particles properties like charge value?
Wrong. The symbols represent measured or observed values.
Wrong. The symbols represent measured or observed values.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 12:41 AM)
Does scrodinger equation was solved with exact solution and only need to put all know values instead letters?
That's generally what solving means.
I was mean, that you don't know precisly mass due to imposibility of measure it with infinity precision and even if you can measure it, you still can't to put it into computer, becouse you can't put inside computer infinity long number...
I was mean, that you don't know precisly mass due to imposibility of measure it with infinity precision and even if you can measure it, you still can't to put it into computer, becouse you can't put inside computer infinity long number...
Wrong. String vibration can be solved classically, it simply represents a useful analogy.
But strings have infinity many harmonics, which can resonate after long time and create big numbers AND ERRORS. I think the same is with schrodinger equation. Scrodinger equation solution is infinity long, but some less important "number" is removed. No?
That's generally what solving means.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 12:41 AM)
Vibration of strings can't be solved of course do to errors and noise and so on...
Wrong. String vibration can be solved classically, it simply represents a useful analogy.
Wrong. String vibration can be solved classically, it simply represents a useful analogy.
QUOTE
Spin, and charge are precise, discrete values. This is what quantization means.
I was mean, that you don't know precisly mass due to imposibility of measure it with infinity precision and even if you can measure it, you still can't to put it into computer, becouse you can't put inside computer infinity long number...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Spin, and charge are precise, discrete values. This is what quantization means. |
I was mean, that you don't know precisly mass due to imposibility of measure it with infinity precision and even if you can measure it, you still can't to put it into computer, becouse you can't put inside computer infinity long number...
Wrong. String vibration can be solved classically, it simply represents a useful analogy.
But strings have infinity many harmonics, which can resonate after long time and create big numbers AND ERRORS. I think the same is with schrodinger equation. Scrodinger equation solution is infinity long, but some less important "number" is removed. No?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 06:17 PM)
I was mean, that you don't know precisly mass due to imposibility of measure it with infinity precision and even if you can measure it, you still can't to put it into computer, becouse you can't put inside computer infinity long number...
And for the umpteenth time I'm telling you that spin does not work that way. It's an exact number.
And mass can be known exactly. The easiest example is the photon - it has exactly zero mass.
Zero is the most precise thing we can measure.
And as far as the HUP goes, there are ways of manipulating it so that you can measure the variable you want (if it's one of the linked pairs).
And for the umpteenth time I'm telling you that spin does not work that way. It's an exact number.
And mass can be known exactly. The easiest example is the photon - it has exactly zero mass.
Zero is the most precise thing we can measure.
And as far as the HUP goes, there are ways of manipulating it so that you can measure the variable you want (if it's one of the linked pairs).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 06:17 PM)
But strings have infinity many harmonics, which can resonate after long time and create big numbers AND ERRORS.
Irrelevant - the errors can be taken into account as harmonics.
It's called Fourier Analysis.
But photon moment (presure into matter) can't be known exactly... And electrons and protons and have mass and charge, which can't be know exaclty. Spin magnitude or magnetic moment can't be know exaclty 0.5*e*hbar/m - there so much unprecise values... On the over hand maybe for schrodinger equation there don't need to know precise value and all molecules interaction can't be understooded from any values, which don't have big impact in though also you saying, that schrodinger equation is segemented of each atoms for molecules...
But photon moment (presure into matter) can't be known exactly... And electrons and protons and have mass and charge, which can't be know exaclty. Spin magnitude or magnetic moment can't be know exaclty 0.5*e*hbar/m - there so much unprecise values... On the over hand maybe for schrodinger equation there don't need to know precise value and all molecules interaction can't be understooded from any values, which don't have big impact in though also you saying, that schrodinger equation is segemented of each atoms for molecules...
And as far as the HUP goes, there are ways of manipulating it so that you can measure the variable you want (if it's one of the linked pairs).
What is HUP?
So schrodinger equation don't have infinity number of "harmonics"? And have exacly solution, yes?
But you must agree, that if your will to move theoretical guitar string, then it vibration will still spread over all metal with many small waves-resonanses and so on and it vibration will be infinity complex, no?
Thus I thinking with schridnger equation maybe is the same, you searching solution and it have infinity "tail", no?
Irrelevant - the errors can be taken into account as harmonics.
It's called Fourier Analysis.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 06:17 PM)
I think the same is with schrodinger equation. Scrodinger equation solution is infinity long, but some less important "number" is removed. No?
Well, as I have said more then once, you're thinking is wrong.
Well, as I have said more then once, you're thinking is wrong.
QUOTE
And mass can be known exactly. The easiest example is the photon - it has exactly zero mass.
But photon moment (presure into matter) can't be known exactly... And electrons and protons and have mass and charge, which can't be know exaclty. Spin magnitude or magnetic moment can't be know exaclty 0.5*e*hbar/m - there so much unprecise values... On the over hand maybe for schrodinger equation there don't need to know precise value and all molecules interaction can't be understooded from any values, which don't have big impact in though also you saying, that schrodinger equation is segemented of each atoms for molecules...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And mass can be known exactly. The easiest example is the photon - it has exactly zero mass. |
But photon moment (presure into matter) can't be known exactly... And electrons and protons and have mass and charge, which can't be know exaclty. Spin magnitude or magnetic moment can't be know exaclty 0.5*e*hbar/m - there so much unprecise values... On the over hand maybe for schrodinger equation there don't need to know precise value and all molecules interaction can't be understooded from any values, which don't have big impact in though also you saying, that schrodinger equation is segemented of each atoms for molecules...
And as far as the HUP goes, there are ways of manipulating it so that you can measure the variable you want (if it's one of the linked pairs).
What is HUP?
QUOTE
Well, as I have said more then once, you're thinking is wrong.
So schrodinger equation don't have infinity number of "harmonics"? And have exacly solution, yes?
But you must agree, that if your will to move theoretical guitar string, then it vibration will still spread over all metal with many small waves-resonanses and so on and it vibration will be infinity complex, no?
Thus I thinking with schridnger equation maybe is the same, you searching solution and it have infinity "tail", no?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 08:30 AM)
ut you must agree, that if your will to move theoretical guitar string, then it vibration will still spread over all metal with many small waves-resonanses and so on and it vibration will be infinity complex, no?
No. Anyone who can do partial differential equations can solve it. It's covered in introductory courses on PDE methods.
No. Anyone who can do partial differential equations can solve it. It's covered in introductory courses on PDE methods.
My god.
Did somebody put your brain in a paper bag, set it on fire, and leave it on someone's doorstep?
Did somebody put your brain in a paper bag, set it on fire, and leave it on someone's doorstep?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 07:30 PM)
But photon moment (presure into matter) can't be known exactly...
Irrelevant (and if memory serves, wrong).
Irrelevant (and if memory serves, wrong).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 07:30 PM)
And electrons and protons and have mass and charge, which can't be know exaclty.
Irrelevant, and wrong.
Irrelevant, and wrong.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 07:30 PM)
Spin magnitude or magnetic moment can't be know exaclty 0.5*e*hbar/m - there so much unprecise values...
Wrong.
Wrong.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 07:30 PM)
On the over hand maybe for schrodinger equation there don't need to know precise value and all molecules interaction can't be understooded from any values, which don't have big impact in though also you saying, that schrodinger equation is segemented of each atoms for molecules...
Largely meaningless.
Largely meaningless.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 07:30 PM)
What is HUP?
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 07:30 PM)
So schrodinger equation don't have infinity number of "harmonics"? And have exacly solution, yes?
For a one proton, one electron system there exist infinitely many energy levels, eventually these energy levels so closely spaced, they look like a continuum.
For a one proton, one electron system there exist infinitely many energy levels, eventually these energy levels so closely spaced, they look like a continuum.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 07:30 PM)
But you must agree, that if your will to move theoretical guitar string, then it vibration will still spread over all metal with many small waves-resonanses and so on and it vibration will be infinity complex, no?
No, I do not have to agree to any such thing.
I aws asking not this, but ok... you say it already... Also I wonder why whose levels are closly spaced if coloumb force decrese quadraticaly in distance and if those levels going like (highest) level->c, where c is constant of distance, then how this electrons can not be not pushed by over electrons (it's mean that can't exist infinity energy levels then)?
Does for example a little bit diferent properties of mass and charge don't changing schrodinger equation shape of orbits and thus interaction between atoms (chemical properties)?
As I understood schrodinger equation is solved like for strings vibration in ideal guitar like somthing with infinity long divergations and so on like tailor series or somthing, but they of course solution is exaclty, but to calculate untill infinity precision there no chance. So anyway is it possible that due to unprecise values of mass charge and schrodinger equation limitation of calculate all tails, there imposible to precisly simulate molecules?
As far as I know for example elctron mass is known only some ten decimal didgits precision. OR more? How much?
But maybe I am wrong and all chemical reactions more based on segmented known structure of each atom and it is not the limitation for understanding DNA or maybe even proteins or cells... Like protein folding... What you would say about it, who is responsible for it? I think that thermal motions of molecules
No, I do not have to agree to any such thing.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 07:30 PM)
Thus I thinking with schridnger equation maybe is the same, you searching solution and it have infinity "tail", no?
No.
No.
QUOTE
For a one proton, one electron system there exist infinitely many energy levels, eventually these energy levels so closely spaced, they look like a continuum.
I aws asking not this, but ok... you say it already... Also I wonder why whose levels are closly spaced if coloumb force decrese quadraticaly in distance and if those levels going like (highest) level->c, where c is constant of distance, then how this electrons can not be not pushed by over electrons (it's mean that can't exist infinity energy levels then)?
Does for example a little bit diferent properties of mass and charge don't changing schrodinger equation shape of orbits and thus interaction between atoms (chemical properties)?
As I understood schrodinger equation is solved like for strings vibration in ideal guitar like somthing with infinity long divergations and so on like tailor series or somthing, but they of course solution is exaclty, but to calculate untill infinity precision there no chance. So anyway is it possible that due to unprecise values of mass charge and schrodinger equation limitation of calculate all tails, there imposible to precisly simulate molecules?
As far as I know for example elctron mass is known only some ten decimal didgits precision. OR more? How much?
But maybe I am wrong and all chemical reactions more based on segmented known structure of each atom and it is not the limitation for understanding DNA or maybe even proteins or cells... Like protein folding... What you would say about it, who is responsible for it? I think that thermal motions of molecules
Particularly I don't know how to calculate magnetisation "power" of spin and how to compare magnetisation with orbital electron amgnetisation. Nor gyromagnetic nor magnetic moments comparition don't seems right, becouse in both used mass and it is irelevant with magnetism. In magnetism description of orbital moment must at least be used charge or particle and speed... And not mass for sure! So how I can compare magnetic power (like to compare charges) of orbital electron magnetisation creating (of say hydrogen atom in ground energy level) and spin magnetisation? Which is bigger?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 10:27 PM)
I aws asking not this, but ok... you say it already... Also I wonder why whose levels are closly spaced if coloumb force decrese quadraticaly in distance and if those levels going like (highest) level->c, where c is constant of distance, then how this electrons can not be not pushed by over electrons (it's mean that can't exist infinity energy levels then)?
I don't remember the answer to this off the top of my head. And I didn't say distance, I said energy. I'm too tired to be bothered looking it up and trying to explain it to you.
I don't remember the answer to this off the top of my head. And I didn't say distance, I said energy. I'm too tired to be bothered looking it up and trying to explain it to you.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 10:27 PM)
Does for example a little bit diferent properties of mass and charge don't changing schrodinger equation shape of orbits and thus interaction between atoms (chemical properties)?
No. To some extent, this is some of the experimental verifications that I have mentioned several times now. The fact that within a group, chemical and physical properties are predictable, and repeat.
No. To some extent, this is some of the experimental verifications that I have mentioned several times now. The fact that within a group, chemical and physical properties are predictable, and repeat.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 10:27 PM)
As I understood schrodinger equation is solved like for strings vibration in ideal guitar like somthing with infinity long divergations and so on like tailor series or somthing, but they of course solution is exaclty, but to calculate untill infinity precision there no chance.
Then you understood wrong, for the most part.
Did you know that the schrodinger equation (or one form of it) can be applied to macroscopic ocean waves, and provides us with our best explanation for rogue waves?
Then you understood wrong, for the most part.
Did you know that the schrodinger equation (or one form of it) can be applied to macroscopic ocean waves, and provides us with our best explanation for rogue waves?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 10:27 PM)
So anyway is it possible that due to unprecise values of mass charge and schrodinger equation limitation of calculate all tails, there imposible to precisly simulate molecules?
mass and charge are known more precisely then you seem to think they are.
mass and charge are known more precisely then you seem to think they are.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 10:27 PM)
As far as I know for example elctron mass is known only some ten decimal didgits precision. OR more? How much?
According to NIST:
Elementary charge: 1.602 176 487 x 10^-19 +/- 0.000 000 040
Electron Mass: 9.109 382 15 x 10^-31 kg +/- 0.000 000 45 x 10^-31 kg
As you can see - pretty precise.
Not enough. If there is bilions atoms then precision becoming +/- ~1. And also precision decreasing after longer simulation of molecules. Thus imposible to simulate precisly molecules... But as you saying schrodinger equation is "quantized"-segmented in molecules and describing only one atom, then maybe there no problem here in this aspect if this aspect is important at all... maybe chmical reactions are very chaotic and noisy and some errors don't have big impact...
Why proteing folding vreating so much problems in simulation and don't craeting problems in nature? Is this becouse very hard to know proteins structure (chemical)? Or maybe just to hard for computer to solve all this schrodinger connections or chemical connections (becouse of too much atoms consist molecule-protein)? Or this all charges suming up and becmoing very complex interactinos between atoms and molecule itself?
According to NIST:
Elementary charge: 1.602 176 487 x 10^-19 +/- 0.000 000 040
Electron Mass: 9.109 382 15 x 10^-31 kg +/- 0.000 000 45 x 10^-31 kg
As you can see - pretty precise.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 10:27 PM)
But maybe I am wrong and all chemical reactions more based on segmented known structure of each atom and it is not the limitation for understanding DNA or maybe even proteins or cells... Like protein folding... What you would say about it, who is responsible for it? I think that thermal motions of molecules
I've already explained this to you, it comes down to the physical properties of the amino acids that make the proteins/enzymes. Amino acid shape, electric dipole, electrophilicity, acidity, physical size (to name a few factors).
As an example - Hyrophilic Amino acids - those capable of forming hydrogen bonds (for example, Aspartic acid) tend to fold to the outside of the enzyme, where as those that are hydrophobic (for example Alanine) tend to fold towards the inside. However, generally, I would expect larger hydrophobic amino acids to fold to the outside (for example isoleucine).
I've already explained this to you, it comes down to the physical properties of the amino acids that make the proteins/enzymes. Amino acid shape, electric dipole, electrophilicity, acidity, physical size (to name a few factors).
As an example - Hyrophilic Amino acids - those capable of forming hydrogen bonds (for example, Aspartic acid) tend to fold to the outside of the enzyme, where as those that are hydrophobic (for example Alanine) tend to fold towards the inside. However, generally, I would expect larger hydrophobic amino acids to fold to the outside (for example isoleucine).
QUOTE
According to NIST:
Elementary charge: 1.602 176 487 x 10^-19 +/- 0.000 000 040
Electron Mass: 9.109 382 15 x 10^-31 kg +/- 0.000 000 45 x 10^-31 kg
As you can see - pretty precise.
Elementary charge: 1.602 176 487 x 10^-19 +/- 0.000 000 040
Electron Mass: 9.109 382 15 x 10^-31 kg +/- 0.000 000 45 x 10^-31 kg
As you can see - pretty precise.
Not enough. If there is bilions atoms then precision becoming +/- ~1. And also precision decreasing after longer simulation of molecules. Thus imposible to simulate precisly molecules... But as you saying schrodinger equation is "quantized"-segmented in molecules and describing only one atom, then maybe there no problem here in this aspect if this aspect is important at all... maybe chmical reactions are very chaotic and noisy and some errors don't have big impact...
Why proteing folding vreating so much problems in simulation and don't craeting problems in nature? Is this becouse very hard to know proteins structure (chemical)? Or maybe just to hard for computer to solve all this schrodinger connections or chemical connections (becouse of too much atoms consist molecule-protein)? Or this all charges suming up and becmoing very complex interactinos between atoms and molecule itself?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 11:26 PM)
Not enough.
Too bad, I don't care.
Too bad, I don't care.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 11:26 PM)
If there is bilions atoms then precision becoming +/- ~1.
Wrong.
Wrong.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 11:26 PM)
And also precision decreasing after longer simulation of molecules.
Wrong. I must have told you dozens of times. Everything i've said has experimental backing.
Wrong. I must have told you dozens of times. Everything i've said has experimental backing.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 11:26 PM)
Thus imposible to simulate precisly molecules...
Wrong.
Wrong.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 11:26 PM)
But as you saying schrodinger equation is "quantized"-segmented in molecules and describing only one atom, then maybe there no problem here in this aspect if this aspect is important at all... maybe chmical reactions are very chaotic and noisy and some errors don't have big impact...
Meaningless, and wrong.
Meaningless, and wrong.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 26 2008, 11:26 PM)
Why proteing folding vreating so much problems in simulation and don't craeting problems in nature? Is this becouse very hard to know proteins structure (chemical)? Or maybe just to hard for computer to solve all this schrodinger connections or chemical connections (becouse of too much atoms consist molecule-protein)? Or this all charges suming up and becmoing very complex interactinos between atoms and molecule itself?
I've already answered this question for you dozens of times.
Because it depends on the physical properties of each individual amino acid, and how the interact with one another. Not all of which the schroedinger equation can tell us directly.
I've already answered this question for you dozens of times.
Because it depends on the physical properties of each individual amino acid, and how the interact with one another. Not all of which the schroedinger equation can tell us directly.
So schrodinger equation somehow related with waves in strings? Like i*h*df/dx=-(0.5*h/m)*d^2f/dx^2 so there is somthing like two derivatives one single and over double. It's somthing like aceleration and "vibration"? Or like speed firs and over like acceleration, interesting why it is improtant for waves?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 27 2008, 08:24 PM)
So schrodinger equation somehow related with waves in strings? Like i*h*df/dx=-(0.5*h/m)*d^2f/dx^2 so there is somthing like two derivatives one single and over double. It's somthing like aceleration and "vibration"? Or like speed firs and over like acceleration, interesting why it is improtant for waves?
Care to try rephrasing that in a meaningful way that's written in English?
Care to try rephrasing that in a meaningful way that's written in English?
Is scrodinger equation coming from all properties of spins. here I see that phase is spins property. And I would say that all this schrodinger equation highly depending on electrons spins (interesting why nuclears spins don't playing any role in sch.eq.?). For example, how would look shells orbits and quantum numbers and schrodinger equation if there wouldn't be electrons spins? Ha? probably everything would be realated with electrons charges and orbital magnetic moments of electrons. And how would look schrodinger equation if there wouldn't be orbital magnetic moments of electrons? If only electron charges and some quantizations of energy levels, huh? There would be interesting. But then probably will be bad for more than two electrons in one orbit.,..
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 27 2008, 10:05 PM)
Is scrodinger equation coming from all properties of spins.
No, it's controlled by other properties of the electron, for example, its angular momentum.
No, it's controlled by other properties of the electron, for example, its angular momentum.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 27 2008, 10:05 PM)
here I see that phase is spins property.
No, phase is a wave property, the schrodinger equation represents a standing wave in 3d, Ψ² - the square of the wave function, represents the probability of finding the electron at that location when you look for a particle (even though the electron really exists everywhere within the orbital.
No, phase is a wave property, the schrodinger equation represents a standing wave in 3d, Ψ² - the square of the wave function, represents the probability of finding the electron at that location when you look for a particle (even though the electron really exists everywhere within the orbital.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 27 2008, 10:05 PM)
And I would say that all this schrodinger equation highly depending on electrons spins (interesting why nuclears spins don't playing any role in sch.eq.?).
No, and no. Do you see a term for nuclear spin in the equation? No. Does nuclear spin influence chemistry? No, otherwise isotopes would be easier to seperate (different isotopes have different spins).
No, and no. Do you see a term for nuclear spin in the equation? No. Does nuclear spin influence chemistry? No, otherwise isotopes would be easier to seperate (different isotopes have different spins).
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 27 2008, 10:05 PM)
For example, how would look shells orbits and quantum numbers and schrodinger equation if there wouldn't be electrons spins? Ha?
It wouldn't look all that different, at most, taking away the electrons spin might influence the electrons magnetic moment, which might influence the end results, but as I have already stated, spin is (largely) irrelevant.
It wouldn't look all that different, at most, taking away the electrons spin might influence the electrons magnetic moment, which might influence the end results, but as I have already stated, spin is (largely) irrelevant.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 27 2008, 10:05 PM)
probably everything would be realated with electrons charges and orbital magnetic moments of electrons.
You've already had it explained to you that this is the case.
You've already had it explained to you that this is the case.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 27 2008, 10:05 PM)
And how would look schrodinger equation if there wouldn't be orbital magnetic moments of electrons?
That would be impossible because then the electron would be stationary.
Is it becouse angular magnetic moment is roughly 10 times bigger than spin magnetic moment? Charge probably also playing not last role?
BTW, I recently understood (read) that nucleons magnetic moment is abou 2000 times smaller than electrons, thus protons/neutrons almost don't have magnetism properties (compare with electron spin magnetism).
Is it becouse angular magnetic moment is roughly 10 times bigger than spin magnetic moment? Charge probably also playing not last role?
BTW, I recently understood (read) that nucleons magnetic moment is abou 2000 times smaller than electrons, thus protons/neutrons almost don't have magnetism properties (compare with electron spin magnetism).
No, phase is a wave property, the schrodinger equation represents a standing wave in 3d, Ψ² - the square of the wave function, represents the probability of finding the electron at that location when you look for a particle (even though the electron really exists everywhere within the orbital.
Why schrodinger equation can't be without such component like quantized (2 levels) phase, from where coming phase in schrodinger equation? From wave-particle duality of electron or from electron spin? If from wave-particle duality then why phase is quantized?
You taling about isotops nuclear spins, probably. But as I read, nuclear spins magnetic field is ~2000 weaker than electrons spin magnetic field. Thus it would be very strange if nuclear spin in hemistry can play some role (except very small role).
That would be impossible because then the electron would be stationary.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 27 2008, 10:05 PM)
If only electron charges and some quantizations of energy levels, huh? There would be interesting. But then probably will be bad for more than two electrons in one orbit.,..
Unless you're dealing with Lewis diagrams there are NEVER more then two electrons in one orbit.
Unless you're dealing with Lewis diagrams there are NEVER more then two electrons in one orbit.
Whoa, what's this? The electron isn't some little billiard ball particle in an orbit. It's an extended entity, a soliton that exhibits wave/particle duality, the wave function is the particle and all that. Schrodinger was right. The "winning" Copenhagen interpretation was wrong. And it grieves me greatly to think that Schrodinger is remembered for the now-miraculous cat that he intended to show how ridiculous the Copenhagen interpretation was.
QUOTE (Farsight+Jun 30 2008, 09:18 PM)
<Useless drivel snipped>
Go away, nobody asked you.
Go away, nobody asked you.
QUOTE
No, it's controlled by other properties of the electron, for example, its angular momentum.
Is it becouse angular magnetic moment is roughly 10 times bigger than spin magnetic moment? Charge probably also playing not last role?
BTW, I recently understood (read) that nucleons magnetic moment is abou 2000 times smaller than electrons, thus protons/neutrons almost don't have magnetism properties (compare with electron spin magnetism).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, it's controlled by other properties of the electron, for example, its angular momentum. |
Is it becouse angular magnetic moment is roughly 10 times bigger than spin magnetic moment? Charge probably also playing not last role?
BTW, I recently understood (read) that nucleons magnetic moment is abou 2000 times smaller than electrons, thus protons/neutrons almost don't have magnetism properties (compare with electron spin magnetism).
No, phase is a wave property, the schrodinger equation represents a standing wave in 3d, Ψ² - the square of the wave function, represents the probability of finding the electron at that location when you look for a particle (even though the electron really exists everywhere within the orbital.
Why schrodinger equation can't be without such component like quantized (2 levels) phase, from where coming phase in schrodinger equation? From wave-particle duality of electron or from electron spin? If from wave-particle duality then why phase is quantized?
QUOTE
No, and no. Do you see a term for nuclear spin in the equation? No. Does nuclear spin influence chemistry? No, otherwise isotopes would be easier to seperate (different isotopes have different spins).
You taling about isotops nuclear spins, probably. But as I read, nuclear spins magnetic field is ~2000 weaker than electrons spin magnetic field. Thus it would be very strange if nuclear spin in hemistry can play some role (except very small role).
QUOTE (->