| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment Using the concept of three-electron bond one can represent the actual electron structure of benzene: See Review (138 pages, full version). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v4 https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond: 1. Structure of the benzene molecule on the basis of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0152v1 2. Experimental confirmation of the existence of the three-electron bond and theoretical basis ot its existence. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0151v2 3. A short analysis of chemical bonds. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0149v2 4. Supplement to the theoretical justification of existence of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0150v2 5. Theory of three-electrone bond in the four works with brief comments. http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0022v2 6. REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (93 p.). http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5 7. Quantum-mechanical aspects of the L. Pauling's resonance theory. http://vixra.org/pdf/1702.0333v2 8. Quantum-mechanical analysis of the MO method and VB method from the position of PQS. http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1 9. Review (138 pages, full version). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v4 https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. 10. Principle of Constancy and Finiteness of the Speed of Gravitational Interaction and Dark Matter. http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0136v1 Links to all works: http://vixra.org/author/bezverkh SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_ https://www.scribd.com/user/2892 https://archive.org/details/@thr https://www.amazon.com/Volodymyr What think? P.S. In the work "STRUCTURE OF THE BENZENE MOLECULE ON THE BASIS OF THE THREE-ELECTRON BOND" the fundamental is the statement that the three-electron bond can be considered as a fermion (in the more general case, that any complex object with half-integral spin is a fermion (imitates a fermion), and every complex object with a whole spin is a boson (simulates Boson)). In physics, this statement in the general case (for compound fermions and bosons) was explained by Pauli using quantum field theory and the theory of relativity. This is stated in the book: R. Feynman, R. Leighton, M. Sands "Feynman lectures on physics". Volume 8, Quantum Mechanics (1). Chapter 2, Identical particles. Paragraph 1, Bose-particles and Fermi-particles. Page 34 (Russian translation, 1966). Since the three-electron coupling is a fermion (Pauli has proved), then following the logic of chemistry explains the structure of benzene, aromaticity, the structure of organic and inorganic compounds. Organic chemistry and chemistry as a whole are self-sufficient sciences and their logic is flawless and perfect. Therefore, it was a mistake to "reduce" chemistry to physics. Hückel rule (4n + 2) for aromatic systems can be written in a different form, in the form of 2n where n - unpaired number. So, we have: 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, etc. This is also true for the electron shells in the atom and aromatic systems. The principle of the interaction of fermions always one, everywhere. Theory of three-electrone bond in the four works with brief comments (full version). https://ia601509.us.archive.org/ Edited by chemist777 (06/12/18 03:58 PM)
| |||||||
|
I only wish i was this good! Registered: 12/30/07 Posts: 4,178 Loc: New Mexico, USA |
| ||||||
|
neat
What significance does the existence of a 3 electron bond have? Does it help fill gaps between theoretical and experimental chemical properties? Are there other ways that this can be useful? Just asking, because its interesting
-------------------- The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you - NDT
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
Using the concept of three-electron bond one can represent the actual electron structure of benzene, explain specificity of the aromatic bond and calculate the delocalization energy.
It is easy to show, that using three-electron bond one can explain paramagnetization and structure of oxygen molecule, structure of carboxylate anion, ozone, naphthalene and other organic and non-organic compounds (p. 19 http://ru.scribd.com/doc/2696375 I note that the three-electron bond to describe the benzene molecule used even W.O. Kermak, R. Robinson and J. J. Thomson at the beginning of the 20th century. Here are links to their works: 1. Thomson, J. J. Philosophical Magazine, 1921, 41, 510-538. 2. W.O. Kermak and R. Robinson, J. Chem. Soc. 427 (1922). But since it is not taken into account the spin of electrons, we have already started cyclooctatetraene problems and therefore the description of the benzene molecule by a three-electron proved unsuccessful. Using the three-electron bond with multiplicity of 1.5 and take account of the spin of each electron leads to very good results in the description of the benzene molecule and explain the aromaticity in general. With the help of three-electron bond with multiplicity of 1.5 can be represented by a real formula of many organic and inorganic molecules without the aid of virtual structures. Theory of three-electron bond is constantly evolving and is used in organic and inorganic chemistry. Below I give links to some work of scientists who have made an invaluable contribution to the development of application and understanding of the three-electron bond: 1. J.W. Linnett (a) J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 83, 2643 (1961). (B) The Electronic Structures of-Molecules, (Methuen, London, 1964). (C) Science Progress (Oxford) 60, 1 (1972). 2. Linus Pauling. The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals: An Introduction to Modern Structural Chemistry 3rd Edition. Copyright 1939 and 1940, third edition. 1960 by Cornell University. 3. R. D. Harcourt. Qualitative Valence-Bond Descriptions of Electron-Rich Molecules: Pauling "3-Electron Bonds" and "Increased-Valence" Theory. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York 1982. 4. Pauling's Legacy. Modern Modelling of the Chemical Bond. Edited by Z. B. Maksic. ELSEVIER 1999. Benzene molecule with three-electron bond. W.O. Kermak and R. Robinson, J. J. Thomson. Edited by chemist777 (05/25/17 02:12 PM)
| |||||||
|
I only wish i was this good! Registered: 12/30/07 Posts: 4,178 Loc: New Mexico, USA |
| ||||||
|
So I guess "fill in knowledge gaps" is the answer?
-------------------- The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you - NDT
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
Using three electron bond like in benzene we can portray the real structure molecule of benzene by one formule. It was impossible without three electron bond. Using three electron bond we can portray really structure of molecule of oxygen, ozone, naftaline and other organic and not-organic sabstanse. Wery important to know, that three electrone bond have multipliciti 1.5 but not 0.5 like early in chemistry.
Using three electron bond will make totally new discaveries in organic chemistry, physix and medicine (study drugs). Edited by chemist777 (05/25/17 02:13 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
If you want to know about three electron bond in benzene molecule and other chemistry, I can gradually explain it.
Edited by chemist777 (05/25/17 02:13 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
The reasons, why three-electron bond are exist:
1) We can represent the one true formule of benzene (p. 3 - 5 http://ru.scribd.com/doc/2696375 One of the drawbacks of the resonance theory is that resonance structures do not exist in reality, and their objectification is a mistake. And assuming the existence of three-electron bond, we can represent the real formula of benzene, aromatic compounds, carboxylate anion, ozone, oxygen, etc. (p. 19 - 29 http://ru.scribd.com/doc/2696375 2) We can simply and clearly explain the increase in the multiplicity of benzene from 1.5 to 1.67. by MO method calculations give a value of 1.67, but Pauling from resonant structures, which is logical (2 and 4 of the electron) gave 1.5. If the multiplicity is greater than 1.5 (eg 1.67), since the communication multiplicity in classical chemistry correlates with the amount of the bonding electrons (even if it is average) like: 2 electron multiplicity 1; 4 electron multiplicity 2; 6 electrons multiplicity 3; thene in benzene at a multiplicity of 1.67 in six (6) aromatic bonds as it further appears 1 electron: 1.67 - 0.17 = 1.5 6 * 0.17 = 1.02 At the three-electron bond in benzene and interaction through a simple explanation of the cycle - the cycle just a little compressed. 3) We can check experimentally: if the three-electron bond and interaction through the cycle are real, then it logically follows the bending real chemical bond density in benzene into benzene. It is important that the maximum density of the chemical bond will be shifted to the center of the benzene cycle link, which is what we are seeing in the atomic force microscopy images (AFM) pentacene (p. 1 - 2 http://ru.scribd.com/doc/2700732 4) Experimental predicted effects: anti-aromatic system (core system) should be flat in order to make it through the interaction cycle. Therefore, to obtain photos and AFM antiaromatic cyclobutadiene cyclooctatetraene must be on a special matrix to consolidate their atoms to make the system perfect planarity (to make it through the interaction cycle), and after that, take a picture AFM permission. And if anti-aromatic photo is received, then we should see a shift of three-electron bonds outside the cycle, and, the picture will be in pentatsene but the loop (p. 4 – 5 http://ru.scribd.com/doc/2700732 5) And if think ... ... reflect the existence of three-electron bond directly from the theory of resonance (resonance structures do not exist, in reality there is something average between them - and now think that should really be the basis of this, some real structure? .. of course the three-electron bond !!!). The theory of three-electron bond accepted for granted the existence of three-electron bonds (one axiom), everything else is derived logically. Now the question is how to explain the existence of the three-electron bond in benzene and other molecules and ions from the point of view of quantum theory. It stands to reason that any placement of three electrons on the same atomic or molecular orbital is out of the question. Therefore it is necessary to lay the existence of three-electron bond in molecules in reality as an axiom. In this case the three- electron bond in benzene can be actually considered a semi-virtual particle. A real particle, such as an electron, exists in the real world for indefinitely long time. Virtual particles exist for the time which is insufficient for experimental registration (strong interactions in atomic nuclei). So we shall call the three- electron bond which really exists for indefinitely long time only in molecules and ions a semi-virtual particle. The three-electron bond as a semi-virtual particle has certain characteristics: its mass is equal to three electronic masses, its charge is equal to three electronic charges, it has half-integer spin (plus, minus 1/2) and a real spatial extension. That is, our semi-virtual particle (the three-electron bond) is a typical fermion. Fermions are particles with half-integer spin; they follow the Fermi-Dirac statistics, and have appropriate consequences, such as the Pauli exclusion principle etc. An electron is a typical fermion, and therefore such distribution in atomic and molecular orbitals is accepted (calculated). It follows that the three-electron bond in benzene is a real fermion in benzene, so quantum calculations can be extended to the molecule of benzene (and other systems) with the use of corresponding fermion (i.e. three- electron bond as a particle) instead of the electron in calculations. Then everything shall be made as usual: the Pauli exclusion principle, distribution in MO, binding and disintegrating MO, etc. Following from the above, interaction of two three-electron bonds in benzene (or rather interaction of three pairs) through the cycle is a typical interaction between two fermions in a molecule at a distance of 2,4 Å which is similar to the interaction of two electrons at the chemical bond formation. Three-electron bond in benzene is classic, "direct", along the axis of the bond ( http://ru.scribd.com/doc/2406663 Edited by chemist777 (05/25/17 02:14 PM)
| |||||||
|
bunbun has a gungun Registered: 05/09/03 Posts: 7,532 Loc: Brick City |
| ||||||
|
AFAIK, what you are describing is a theory over 100 years old that nobody uses anymore.
There are alternating double bonds in the usual "picture" of a resonance structure (an oversimplification). This would give 1 and 2 electrons in an alternating basis between carbons, so 3*2=6 pi electrons and 3*2=6 sigma electrons in the double bonds, and 3*2=6 sigma electrons in the single bonds. Between carbons, there are an average of (12+6) / 6 = 3 electrons total, but it is the 6 pi electrons that are shared by all carbons. This can be seen in electrostatic potential maps of benzene. -------------------- Any research paper or book for free (Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
Ther is no theory like that. + and - on picks and in theory this not a Coulomb charge, author of theory denotes electron spins (up and down). And, three electron bond (what used in theory) this a new view of bond in chemistry (which has never been before). It is very important that the three electron bond has entered multiplicity 1.5. This is axiom and most fundamental assumption. In the chemistry used three electrone bond with multiplicity 0.5 (like in Oxygen) but it actually one electrone bond. Introduced three electrone bond with multiplicity 1.5 is the foundation of this theory, and essentially new kind of chemical bond.
Edited by chemist777 (05/25/17 02:15 PM)
| |||||||
|
bunbun has a gungun Registered: 05/09/03 Posts: 7,532 Loc: Brick City |
| ||||||
|
There is no three electron bond.
An orbital can't hold three electrons, so this makes absolutely no sense at all. It makes sense why this was thought to be the case a long time ago, however. I forget who proposed it, but 6 single bonds x 2 e- = 12 + 6 shared pi e- = 18, which / 3 = 6 We now know this isn't the case, evidenced from imaging of the electron clouds above and below. -------------------- Any research paper or book for free (Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
I think you don't read links.
See p.4 https://ru.scribd.com/doc/270073 It explains, why three electron bond are exist from the perspective of quantum mechanics. Here's a little quote frome here: "Now the question is how to explain the existence of the three-electron bond in benzene and other molecules and ions from the point of view of quantum theory. It stands to reason that any placement of three electrons on the same atomic or molecular orbital is out of the question. Therefore it is necessary to lay the existence of three-electron bond in molecules in reality as an axiom. In this case the three- electron bond in benzene can be actually considered a semi-virtual particle. A real particle, such as an electron, exists in the real world for indefinitely long time. Virtual particles exist for the time which is insufficient for experimental registration (strong interactions in atomic nuclei). So we shall call the three- electron bond which really exists for indefinitely long time only in molecules and ions a semi-virtual particle. The three-electron bond as a semi-virtual particle has certain characteristics: its mass is equal to three electronic masses, its charge is equal to three electronic charges, it has half-integer spin (plus, minus 1/2) and a real spatial extension. That is, our semi-virtual particle (the three-electron bond) is a typical fermion. Fermions are particles with half-integer spin; they follow the Fermi-Dirac statistics, and have appropriate consequences, such as the Pauli exclusion principle etc. An electron is a typical fermion, and therefore such distribution in atomic and molecular orbitals is accepted (calculated). It follows that the three-electron bond in benzene is a real fermion in benzene, so quantum calculations can be extended to the molecule of benzene (and other systems) with the use of corresponding fermion (i.e. three- electron bond as a particle) instead of the electron in calculations. Then everything shall be made as usual: the Pauli exclusion principle, distribution in MO, binding and disintegrating MO, etc. Following from the above, interaction of two three-electron bonds in benzene (or rather interaction of three pairs) through the cycle is a typical interaction between two fermions in a molecule at a distance of 2,4 Å which is similar to the interaction of two electrons at the chemical bond formation." The MO theory is just a simple math theory, and it not exist in real life, like resonanse structures. Read "The reasons, why three-electron bond are exist". Edited by chemist777 (05/25/17 02:16 PM)
| |||||||
|
bunbun has a gungun Registered: 05/09/03 Posts: 7,532 Loc: Brick City |
| ||||||
|
No, they are pi bonds (as opposed to the other sigma bonds).
They aren't in the same orbital. We know this now; you can clearly see the distinction between overlapping orbitals and the pi electron clouds. Not rocket science and not anything new. It's a molecule, not a subatomic particle... >.> edit: not really s -------------------- Any research paper or book for free (Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP) Edited by micro (02/26/16 07:14 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
At first, quantum sustem of unpaired number of fermions is itself a fermion, is a classic, so three elctrons is typical fermion who will behave appropriately.
Second, description of the chemical bond using the pi and sigma bond this is one of the alternative description. The correct and fair description of the chemical bond there is description of multiple bonds with the help of bent bonds (Pauling, in 1930 years). At this symposium (London, 1958) Pauling categorically stated: "There may be chemists who believe that it is extremely important innovation was the introduction of σ, π-description for the double or triple bond and conjugated systems instead of describing via bent bonds. I would argue that σ, π-description is less satisfactory than the description by means of curved links that this innovation is only transitory and will soon wither away." Pauling was right, the theory of valence bonds, which used σ, π-description chemical bonding, lost its leading position. (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Теория_изогнутой_ "Two different explanations for the nature of double and triple covalent bonds in organic molecules were proposed in the 1930s. Linus Pauling proposed that the double bond results from two equivalent tetrahedral orbitals from each atom,[7] which later came to be called banana bonds or tau bonds.[8] Erich Hückel proposed a representation of the double bond as a combination of a sigma bond plus a pi bond.[9][10][11] The Hückel representation is the better-known one, and it is the one found in most textbooks since the late-20th century. There is still some debate as to which of the two representations is better,[12] although both models are mathematically equivalent. In a 1996 review, Kenneth B. Wiberg concluded that "although a conclusive statement cannot be made on the basis of the currently available information, it seems likely that we can continue to consider the σ/π and bent-bond descriptions of ethylene to be equivalent.[2] Ian Fleming goes further in a 2010 textbook, noting that "the overall distribution of electrons [...] is exactly the same" in the two models.[13]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be This double bond is 2 equivalent sigma bond (pi bond is not present). Becouse of this, description bonds with sigma and pi bonds is first method of description, description bonds with bent bonds is second method of description, description bonds with three electron bonds is third method of description. The correctness of the theory verified compliance of the experimental facts and predictions of new effects. Theory of three electron bond predict in aromatic interesting effect: anti-aromatic system (core system) should be flat in order to make it through the interaction cycle. Therefore, to obtain photos and AFM antiaromatic cyclobutadiene cyclooctatetraene must be on a special matrix to consolidate their atoms to make the system perfect planarity (to make it through the interaction cycle), and after that, take a picture AFM permission. And if anti-aromatic photo is received, then we should see a shift of three-electron bonds outside the cycle, and, the picture will be in pentatsene but the loop (p. 4 – 5 http://ru.scribd.com/doc/2700732 Edited by chemist777 (05/25/17 02:16 PM)
| |||||||
|
bunbun has a gungun Registered: 05/09/03 Posts: 7,532 Loc: Brick City |
| ||||||
|
double and triple covalent bonds do not have three electrons
The fact that bond angle can bend is well-known, for example BF3 is planar, having six valence electrons and NH3 (and NH4) is tetrahedral having a lone pair (which has a repelling effect on other electrons that is a bit stronger being closer to the nucleus). Water is "bent" having a bond angle of 104.5, a tetrahedral shape from the two lone pairs. None of this changes the fact that there is no three electron bond. It brings up a good point that bond angle could also be used to show this, however. If there were other electrons it would have a repelling effect in the outer ring. Quote:
-------------------- Any research paper or book for free (Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Of course three electron bonds not exist in ethylene, acetylene.
The theoretical justification is true and it should not be forgotten (just an ordinary electron is a fermion), as well as the curvature of bonds into pentacene is observed on the photo AFM. But other than that if you use the three electron bond in benzene at once solved a lot of problems: 1. drawn real structure of the benzene molecule (and this is already an achievement). 2. are explained easily and clearly aromaticity of benzene and antiaromaticity cyclobutadiene. It becomes obvious why at 4n + 2 aromatic and at 4n antiaromatic. p. 4 – 5 https://www.scribd.com/doc/26963 3. simply calculated delocalization energy of benzene (58,416 kcal / mol) p. 11 https://www.scribd.com/doc/26963 4. easily and clearly explains the increase in the multiplicity of benzene from 1.5 to 1.66 (due to the interaction between the three electron bonds through a series of benzene slightly compressed). p. 11, 15,14 https://www.scribd.com/doc/26963 5. easy and simple to explain the difference of external and internal signals of protons in [18] -annulene p. 20 – 21 https://www.scribd.com/doc/26963 6. You can picture structure of furan, thiophene, pyrrole, naphthalene, anthracene, graphite, oxygen, ozone, carboxylate anion and other organic and non-organic compounds. p. 19 – 29 https://www.scribd.com/doc/26963 this is not enough ??? And still need to clearly understand that the existence of two-electron chemical bond does not follow from fundamental interactions. But must follow!!! Therefore, the chemical bond and does not appear "on the tip of the pen", and introduced explanation exchange interaction and the like, since it is clear and proven that a purely Coulomb interaction (electromagnetic) is not sufficient to describe chemical bond (where there is more than one electron). By the way one-electron bond is displayed "on the tip of the pen." Think ... with chemical bonding distance between the electrons (couple) should be the maximum that was the least the Coulomb repulsion between them and at the same time the electrons need to be concentrated in the middle of chemical bond to make it existed! With the chemical bond and the two-electron three-electron all hard. Therefore, when a breakthrough in theoretical terms in this direction chemistry waiting for great things (you will agree that this chemistry is still an empirical science, and quantum mechanical calculations are not very used experimenters, such as synthetic organic chemistry, etc.). P.S. http://vixra.org/author/bezverkh Edited by chemist777 (08/21/16 03:28 AM)
| |||||||
|
bunbun has a gungun Registered: 05/09/03 Posts: 7,532 Loc: Brick City |
| ||||||
Quote: Nobody mentioned them but thanks for that random tidbit of information :V Quote: Are you just throwing big words in here trying to win an argument you suck at by exhaustion? If so, you fail miserably. Let's talk fermions: Quote: So, you CAN'T HAVE THREE FUCKING ELECTRONS IN AN ORBITAL. GAWSH You are obviously unable to admit when you are wrong, making idiotic assertions like THEORIES happen to be true (because you say so) however compelling the evidence is against it just don't ever become a scientist, you suck at it :v -------------------- Any research paper or book for free (Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
You say: "As a consequence of the Pauli exclusion principle, only one fermion can occupy a particular quantum state at any given time."
This is absolute true. But you must andestend one elementary for physix thing - sustem from unpaired noumber of fermions are fermion itself. It has long been known, and no one is interested. Before randomly criticize consult wits physicists. What is this means that in this case? This means, if we have three electrons (like for three electrone bond) the theoretically correct (in the quantum sense) to consider it as one fermion. And and this particular fermion occupies a certain orbital. Note, not three electrons placing on MO, but ONE FERMION (one particle, not three). Quite simply, this beautiful quantum world...
| |||||||
|
bunbun has a gungun Registered: 05/09/03 Posts: 7,532 Loc: Brick City |
| ||||||
Quote: Ar yuou drunkk? :V Quote: THAT ... pretty much sums up every post i made :v Quote: i dun need randomly consult wit physicists :v Let me show you the physics involved in backpedaling: Quote: So, three electrons is one particle now :V You are obviously delusional so you won't understand how ridiculous that sounds to everybody. You can't backpedal and support your argument by claiming three electrons is one particle now. Well, you can... >.> You did, but it sounds ridiculous. There is a reason you keep citing the same article over and over again (seven consecutive times in one post!) It's because nobody else takes it seriously. Now, tell me the truth. Are you the guy who wrote that article? :V -------------------- Any research paper or book for free (Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
At first, you badly brought up.
Second, quantum system, consisting of an odd number of fermions are fermion itself (how painful, it is not specified in the English Wikipedia). Therefore, eliminate illiteracy: fermions - are particles or quasi-particles with half-integer spin. Examples of fermions: quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, holes in semiconductors (it is a quasi-particle), the electron conduction in semiconductors (it is a quasi-particle) and the like. Third, the existence of three electron bond take as an axiom. And further, for example to a benzene molecule it shows why it better. Fourth, to understand what we need a certain level of understanding of organic chemistry (especially aromatics). Fifth, how to explain the man three electron bond in benzene if he does not understand (based on the previous posts) explanation of double and triple bonds using this curved links Pauling. While it is beautiful and it more than 80 years. P.S. In the work "STRUCTURE OF THE BENZENE MOLECULE ON THE BASIS OF THE THREE-ELECTRON BOND" the fundamental is the statement that the three-electron bond can be considered as a fermion (in the more general case, that any complex object with half-integral spin is a fermion (imitates a fermion), and every complex object with a whole spin is a boson (simulates Boson)). In physics, this statement in the general case (for compound fermions and bosons) was explained by Pauli using quantum field theory and the theory of relativity. This is stated in the book: R. Feynman, R. Leighton, M. Sands "Feynman lectures on physics". Volume 8, Quantum Mechanics (1). Chapter 2, Identical particles. Paragraph 1, Bose-particles and Fermi-particles. Page 34 (Russian translation, 1966). Since the three-electron coupling is a fermion (Pauli has proved), then following the logic of chemistry explains the structure of benzene, aromaticity, the structure of organic and inorganic compounds. Organic chemistry and chemistry as a whole are self-sufficient sciences and their logic is flawless and perfect. Therefore, it was a mistake to "reduce" chemistry to physics. In the transition from the isolated atoms to the molecule there is a qualitative jump and we get a virtually new form of matter (chemical), which is no longer reduced to a simple mechanics of the motions of electrons and atomic nuclei (that is, to physics). But the laws of physics and quantum mechanics are unshakable, they can not be violated. Therefore, at the moment, the chemical bond is an "act of divine creation," which, alas, is not reducible to physics. There is no doubt that from the physical point of view it will be possible to describe, in time, and this will lead science (physics and chemistry) to a whole new level. But now the reason for the formation of a chemical bond can only be explained from the chemical point of view (in fact, by chemical expediency). If we consider the issue from the point of view of physics (4 fundamental interactions, motions of electrons and nuclei), then alas, the question is open... This double bond is 2 equivalent sigma bond (pi bond is not present). Edited by chemist777 (07/16/17 09:00 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
This is something interestin about fermions:
"Composite fermions In addition to elementary fermions and bosons, nonrelativistic composite particles made up of more fundamental particles bound together through a potential energy are composite fermions or bosons, depending only on the number of elementary fermions they contain: A composite particle containing an even number of elementary fermions is a boson. Examples: A meson contains two fermion quarks and is a boson. The nucleus of a carbon-12 atom contains six protons and six neutrons (all fermions) and is also a boson. A composite particle containing an odd number of elementary fermions is a fermion. Examples: A baryon contains three quarks and is therefore a fermion. The nucleus of a carbon-13 atom contains six protons and seven neutrons and is therefore a fermion. The number of bosons within a composite particle made up of simple particles bound with a potential has no effect on whether the composite particle is a boson or a fermion. In a quantum field theory, the situation is more interesting. There can be field configurations of bosons that are topologically twisted. These are coherent states that behave like particles, and they can be fermionic even if all the elementary particles are bosons. This situation was discovered by Tony Skyrme in the early 1960s, so fermions made of bosons are named Skyrmions. Fermionic or bosonic behavior of a composite particle (or system) is seen only at large distances (compared to the size of the system). At proximity, where spatial structure begins to be important, a composite particle (or system) behaves according to its constituent makeup. For example, two atoms of helium cannot share the same space if it is comparable by size to the size of the inner structure of the helium atom itself (~10−10 m)—despite bosonic properties of the helium atoms. Thus, liquid helium has finite density comparable to the density of ordinary liquid matter." http://www.newworldencyclopedia.
| |||||||
|
bunbun has a gungun Registered: 05/09/03 Posts: 7,532 Loc: Brick City |
| ||||||
Quote: How apropos ![]() I'm done. Continue not making any sense though, by all means. -------------------- Any research paper or book for free (Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Sorry for the typo in the word system.Confirmation of why three electrons can be considered one fermion: "Fermionic or bosonic behavior of a composite particle (or system) is seen only at large distances (compared to the size of the system). At proximity, where spatial structure begins to be important, a composite particle (or system) behaves according to its constituent makeup. For example, two atoms of helium cannot share the same space if it is comparable by size to the size of the inner structure of the helium atom itself (~10−10 m)—despite bosonic properties of the helium atoms. Thus, liquid helium has finite density comparable to the density of ordinary liquid matter." http://www.newworldencyclopedia. Edited by chemist777 (03/02/16 07:06 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
The biggest disadvantage of the resonance theory is that resonance structures do not exist in reality, they are not.
With the help of three electron bond we can provide the actual structure of the benzene molecule. The need to introduce three electron bond in the description of the benzene molecule can be understood (to some extent) reading the book (Chapter IX "Chemistry") Loren R. Graham. Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior in the Soviet Union, Columbia University Press, 1987. Short and interesting in Chapter IX "chemistry" of this book Loren R. Graham describes the concept of resonance theory in chemistry (description of the benzene molecule), as well as its criticism of the Soviet period. Loren R. Graham - Professor at MIT (USA) on the big Material of actually analyzes full of dramatic story of the interaction of dialectical materialism and Soviet scients in the period from 1917 to mid-80s. Provides a link to the original work. Here is a quote Pauling: "We can say ... that the molecule can not be satisfactorily represented by any particular structure of the valence bond and stop trying to tie its structure and properties of the structure and properties of other molecules. But, using valence bond structures as a basis for discussion, we are using the concept of resonance can give an explanation of the properties of the molecule, directly and simply in terms of other properties of the molecules. For us, convenient, for practical reasons, talk about the resonance of molecules among several electronic structures. " Here's another quote Academician Koptyuga: British journalist: "If you look at the history of science after the Revolution, you will see several cases of political interference in the fundamental research ... What do you think, could this happen again? " Academician V. Koptiug, Chairman of the Siberian Branch of the USSR: "You see, this is a very complex issue ... When in the past with philosophical positions criticized the concept of resonance in chemistry ... is, from my point of view, it is true. But when a general philosophical position of trying to solve major scientific problems, such as whether genetics science or pseudoscience, it was a mistake. " TV interview BBC, November 8, 1981 Who loves the history of chemistry (of benzene) is very interesting and informative. I recommend reading (chapter 9, or a book), very interesting, here are some links: https://www.goodreads.com/book/s http://www.amazon.com/Science-Ph https://www.researchgate.net/pub http://web.mit.edu/lrg/www/graha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo Edited by chemist777 (03/03/16 11:52 AM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/11/03 Posts: 29,258 |
| ||||||
Quote: This substantiates what micro has been saying.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Is of the links is not clear that the fermion system can be fermion?
http://www.newworldencyclopedia. Edited by chemist777 (03/03/16 03:25 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
look at the picture which shows the urea molecule with the calculations. The multiplicity of C-N bonds in the molecule of urea - 1.686. Think, this mean the C athom connected with two atoms of nitrogen (urea) bonds with a multiplicity of approximately 1.7, fold that is one of the C-N bond is almost 2. Are classical structure transmits real formula of urea molecules? The multiplicity of C-O bond (urea) of approximately 1.5. That is the classic formula of urea (to which all accustomed to in the school and at university) almost not reflects the real structure of the urea. Naturally, the explanation of the conjugation of the unshared pair of electrons of nitrogen with C-N bond are right. But classical formule (without arrows) does not show the structure of the molecule. And note that the corresponding resonance structure (in which a multiplicity of the C-N bond - 2) can be written, but of course you can not write a resonance structure in which the two C-N bond have multiplicity 2. See calculations on page 30 on this link: https://www.scribd.com/doc/26963 P.S. http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0022v1 http://vixra.org/author/bezverkh Edited by chemist777 (08/21/16 03:32 AM)
| |||||||
|
Spacetime Anomaly Registered: 02/22/04 Posts: 446 Loc: Colorado, USA Last seen: 3 days, 19 hours |
| ||||||
|
When I saw this I had a flash back to chemistry class in high school. Correct me if i'm wrong because it's been a while but the normal theory on chems like benzene is that the electrons are de-localized not belonging to a single bond / atom kind of in a state of 'flux'?
Sorry still parsing through the whole thread, will have to do some research. Have been wanting to get back in to chemistry. Still remember doing qualitative analysis separating chemicals / from a solution and determining what they were. Sorry for the tangent heh.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Explanation of the structure of benzene with delocalized electrons is actually given in the school and university. But there is not so simple and smooth, so I think that the explanation of the structure of benzene by the three electron bond are better.
Excellence description why three electron bond are better given by a posts before. Without regard of three electrone bond its impossible to portray oxygen molecule that has a multiplicity of connection 2 and two unpaired electrones. This experimental fact that multiplicity ob bond in the oxygen molecule is equal to two, and at the same time there are 2 unpaired electrones (Oxygen molecule has paramagnetic properties, it is an experimental fact, the multiplicity of bond correlates with the energy of bond, with IR spectra and the like, and there is no doubt that the multiplicity of oxygen molecule is two). Pick of molecule of oxigen on p.28, 32 by the first link. "Generally, the octet rule defines the state of the three-electron bond, that is, the distribution of the electrons, the energy of their interaction with each other and other unpaired electrons, the fact and the extent of belonging of the three-electron bond electrons to one or another atom." (p. 32) This fact is yet another confirmation of the existence of three electrone bond. If possible, return to the excellent science chemistry, Good luck! Edited by chemist777 (03/09/16 11:58 AM)
| |||||||
|
bunbun has a gungun Registered: 05/09/03 Posts: 7,532 Loc: Brick City |
| ||||||
Quote: Yes. Well, it has normal bonds; if you remember from school a double-bond is a sigma bond and a pi bond. It's these pi bonds that are "shared" between the atoms, or a better way to look at it is to think of it as a resonance structure of alternating double bonds. The important part is it helps to de-localize a charge, for example from an electron-withdrawing side group. This isn't just seen in benzene but other molecules as well, like the cyclopentadienyl anion, certain purines, pyridines and pyramidines, etc. -------------------- Any research paper or book for free (Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP) Edited by micro (03/09/16 11:41 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
| |||||||
|
bunbun has a gungun Registered: 05/09/03 Posts: 7,532 Loc: Brick City |
| ||||||
Quote: Come on, cut it out D: I stopped at the first picture, around figure 1. That isn't how the charges on benzene work or ortho/para and meta directing groups wouldn't have the effect that they do. Then you have alternating charges on the next one which, while I suppose it is slightly more correct, is still incorrect. Unsubstituted benzene would be more like -, -, -, -, -, -. Stick an EWG on it though, and it will follow the pattern in figure two. -------------------- Any research paper or book for free (Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I post this pics to get people much easier to understand the theory.
Orto, para and meta effectr in benzene with three elctron bond beautifully explains. To understand this see 4 pic (5 figure) and imagine pumping (or vice versa) of the electron density taking into account the interaction of three electron bonds in benzene.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
This 33 screenshots (most with explanation) see by this link:
https://archive.org/details/@thr Edited by chemist777 (03/23/16 08:45 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 05/10/09 Posts: 281 Last seen: 4 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
I, personally, would prefer a (recent) peer reviewed journal article.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
The existence of large aromatic monocycles has been proved impossible based on interaction of three-electron bonds through the cycle at distances between the bonds (through the cycle) greater than 3.5 Å due to the lack of energy interaction (the length of chemical bonds is in the range of distances 0.74 Å – 3.5 Å). The chemical bond (two-electron and three-electron) is considered on the assumption that the electrons in a chemical bond can be regarded as being in an entangled quantum state, that is, the chemical bond is seen as a new "indivisible" particle. There has been provided an algorithm for calculating the two-electron chemical bond "on the tip of the pen". An attempt was made to explain the mechanism of interaction of particles in an entangled quantum state on the basis of a new model of the interfering Universe. https://www.scribd.com/doc/31012 Why interesting can go by link to see "A short analysis of chemical bonds": https://www.scribd.com/doc/30641 P.S. http://vixra.org/author/bezverkh Edited by chemist777 (08/21/16 03:36 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 04/27/16 Posts: 9 Last seen: 7 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
This whole thread gave me cancer. You cannot possibly tell me, chemist777whateveryournameis, that this is even remotely relevant today in physical chemistry or anywhere else?
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Did you know other explanations of the existence or non-existence of large aromatic monocycles?
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
| |||||||
|
Sir Dirty Ghetto Street Pirate Registered: 05/12/16 Posts: 879 Loc: Glade air freshener In jurassi... Last seen: 2 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
|
I need a recipe for extracting cyanogenic glycoside from apple seeds or bitter almonds or elderberries. I do better with knowing what to buy when it comes to brands containing chemical compounds for extraction rather than exact chemical compound formulas. Example given NaCl table salt... the best concentration of this compound is sold under the brand name...
In return I give you Syntheses production for "Chlorine trifluoride" and a link to buy chemicals for sythinsation process....
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
We discuss here about the theory of the chemical bond. Your request a bit different ...
| |||||||
|
bunbun has a gungun Registered: 05/09/03 Posts: 7,532 Loc: Brick City |
| ||||||
Quote: You would be extracting them from plant material. I don't think there there is a brand for these since they aren't very commercially useful. Are you trying to keep the whole You wouldn't want to use very harsh reagents that could hydrolyze the nitrile (CN) or deesterify to mandelin and the sugar acid. For Mandelin: Quote: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm Quote: I'm actually interested if this is at a clandestine level. HF would probably be a bitch to work with, though not very hard to make from i.e. NaF >.< -------------------- Any research paper or book for free (Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
1. Structure of the benzene molecule on the basis of the three-electron bond.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
2. Experimental confirmation of the existence of the three-electron bond and theoretical basis ot its existence.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
3. A short analysis of chemical bonds.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
4. Supplement to the theoretical justification of existence of the three-electron bond.
5. Theory of three-electrone bond in the four works with brief comments. http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0022v1 Edited by chemist777 (08/21/16 03:42 AM)
| |||||||
|
bunbun has a gungun Registered: 05/09/03 Posts: 7,532 Loc: Brick City |
| ||||||
|
Hey, OP -
Are you related to this guy?
-------------------- Any research paper or book for free (Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment
Author of three-electron bond theory formulated the definition of multiplicity:
"The multiplicity of bond is the energy of bond expressed in dimensionless units". REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (full version, 93 p.). http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5 Also posted new links to all 5 works: 1. Structure of the benzene molecule on the basis of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0152v1 2. Experimental confirmation of the existence of the three-electron bond and theoretical basis ot its existence. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0151v2 3. A short analysis of chemical bonds. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0149v2 4. Supplement to the theoretical justification of existence of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0150v2 5. Theory of three-electrone bond in the four works with brief comments. http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0022v2 Edited by chemist777 (05/25/17 02:25 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
This graphic represents a slice of the spider-web-like structure of the universe, called the "cosmic web." These great filaments are made largely of dark matter located in the space between galaxies. Credit: NASA, ESA, and E. Hallman (University of Colorado, Boulder). How the solar system looks from Sedna. As seen from Sedna, the Sun would form somewhat of an isosceles triangle with Spica to the lower right and Antares to the lower left. NASA, ESA and Adolf Schaller - Hubble Observes Planetoid Sedna. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0152v1 What about the new model of the Universe interfering? Not bad? And as a logical and beautiful microcosm with the macrocosm united. Model of the Interfering Universe: "Now, let's try to explain the possibility of interaction of electrons and other particles, which are in an entangled quantum state, what presupposes the existence of any distance between them, for example, 1 m, or 1000 km, it is not essential, the distance can be arbitrarily long. And this distance does not affect the entangled quantum system, the particles of which miraculously know the characteristics of each other. To do this we'll have to simulate our Universe. So, let's imagine our infinite Universe as a finite (for convenience of description) object, such as an ordinary cube. Now let's imagine this cube empty of matter, space-time, and in general of any fields and other characteristics, there is no matter, and, in principle, anything. Now, let's "insert" an electron in the cube, and at once in the Universe there will appear space-time, weight, variety of fields (gravitational, electromagnetic, and so on), energy and other characteristics. After the electron appeared in the Universe, it came to life, and was born in principle. And now let's specify that the electron is not simply located in the Universe and has specific location and spot size, and its fields (electromagnetic, gravitational, and other existing and unknown) occupy and fill the whole Universe, the entire space-time continuum, our whole infinite Universe. Now let's step by step fill our cube (our Universe) with all elementary particles that exist in the Universe. And there is one condition that must be followed: each elementary particle occupies entirely and completely the whole Universe by its fields, energy and other characteristics, that is each particle completely fills (literally) all the infinite Universe, but at the same time it has certain coordinates (the most probable place of elementary particle detection). With this description, our Universe, which is infinite in all senses (spatial, energy, time, etc.), will represent a giant interference of any and all elementary particles, a model of the "Interfering Universe". And now the main thing: since each elementary particle occupies (fills) the whole Universe (and at the same time is in a particular place with certain coordinates (its most probabilistic definition in this point, or more precisely in this region of space)), then there is nothing unusual in the fact that when forming an entangled quantum state each elementary particle "knows" the characteristics of its partner in a quantum state. Elementary particles "know" everything about all the other elementary particles since they fill the same Universe (it is their common home). They (elementary particles) constantly interact, interfere, but depending on their characteristics and the characteristics of their partners (coordinates, mass, energy, field, distances between the peak densities of detection, wave characteristics, etc.) form stable bonds (most varied and not only energy) only with certain partner particles. Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that our Universe, our world more precisely, is an interference pattern of each and every particle in the Universe. Now the wave-particle duality of particles, probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanical phenomena and other quantum effects of the microcosm become intuitively clear. For example, why there is a non-zero probability of finding an electron, which rotates in a specific hydrogen atom (which is in a particular laboratory), for example, on the Moon. And it is both on the Moon and on the Sun, as well as anywhere in the space of our Universe; it really fills (takes) the whole Universe. But its presence in a particular area, "the density of presence", so to speak (probability of detection), is different at different points of the space. In the interfering Universe, all elementary particles "know everything" about all the other elementary particles (since they are in the same Universe), but not all of them are suitable for all in terms of formation of various bonds (in energy and other senses). Therefore, only those particles interact, which have a well-defined set of characteristics for each other and for specific types of interactions. And our world forms as a result of such interactions." p.5-6 Supplement to the theoretical justification of existence of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0150v1 P.S. I note that the three-electron bond to describe the benzene molecule used even W.O. Kermak, R. Robinson and J. J. Thomson at the beginning of the 20th century. Here are links to their works: 1. Thomson, J. J. Philosophical Magazine, 1921, 41, 510-538. 2. W.O. Kermak and R. Robinson, J. Chem. Soc. 427 (1922). But since it is not taken into account the spin of electrons, we have already started cyclooctatetraene problems and therefore the description of the benzene molecule by a three-electron proved unsuccessful. Using the three-electron bond with multiplicity of 1.5 and take account of the spin of each electron leads to very good results in the description of the benzene molecule and explain the aromaticity in general. With the help of three-electron bond with multiplicity of 1.5 can be represented by a real formula of many organic and inorganic molecules without the aid of virtual structures. Theory of three-electron bond is constantly evolving and is used in organic and inorganic chemistry. Below I give links to some work of scientists who have made an invaluable contribution to the development of application and understanding of the three-electron bond: 1. J.W. Linnett (a) J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 83, 2643 (1961). (B) The Electronic Structures of-Molecules, (Methuen, London, 1964). (C) Science Progress (Oxford) 60, 1 (1972). 2. Linus Pauling. The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals: An Introduction to Modern Structural Chemistry 3rd Edition. Copyright 1939 and 1940, third edition. 1960 by Cornell University. 3. R. D. Harcourt. Qualitative Valence-Bond Descriptions of Electron-Rich Molecules: Pauling "3-Electron Bonds" and "Increased-Valence" Theory. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York 1982. 4. Pauling's Legacy. Modern Modelling of the Chemical Bond. Edited by Z. B. Maksic. ELSEVIER 1999. Benzene molecule with three-electron bond. W.O. Kermak and R. Robinson, J. J. Thomson. Edited by chemist777 (09/04/16 01:57 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
L(c-c) benzene = 1.40 Å, L(B-N) borazine = 1.44 Å.
L1 ≈ L2. Nice. Aromatic bond is fundamental basis of organic chemistry. Concept of three-electron bond in benzene (and borasine) molecule enable to explain specificity of aromatic bond. http://vixra.org/author/bezverkh https://www.facebook.com/photo.p
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (full version, 93 p.). http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5 http://vixra.org/author/bezverkh Edited by chemist777 (01/09/17 08:25 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
The reason of the formation of the chemical bond.
The reason for the formation of the chemical bond is still not clear, in fact, there is no physical justification, as it was at the time of Bohr, since the formation of a chemical bond does not follow from the four fundamental interactions. Just imagine, a chemical bond "does not understand" that it can not be explained normally and quietly exists . A full explanation of the chemical bond can only be provided by quantum mechanics (in the future), classical approaches simply do not work.To understand this, it is necessary not to forget what L. Pauling did (L. Pauling, "The nature of the chemical bond", and the work of L. Pauling: Chem. Rev. 5, 173 (1928)), namely Pauling analyzed the interaction of the hydrogen atom and the proton in the entire range of lengths (he admitted that the hydrogen atom and H + on the approach are preserved and showed that the bond is not formed in this case (since there is no exchange interaction or resonance by Pauling)). Only one of the above-mentioned facts actually destroys the classical approach (attraction and repulsion by Coulomb) to explaining the chemical bond. There inevitably follows that the chemical bond is a quantum-mechanical effect and no other. Imagine a system with two protons and one electron, but if it is treated as a hydrogen atom and a proton, then the bond can not form over the whole range of lengths. But, as Burrau showed, the bond in H2 + is formed (if we consider the system as two protons and one electron), and no one particularly doubts this, since H2 + exists. I particularly emphasize that there is only one electron (there is no inter-electronic repulsion, etc.). After this fact, further discussions can not be continued, they do not make sense (especially to apply this to the explanation of two-electron bond or aromatic, this is a slightly different level of complexity). But nevertheless, it should be noted that quantum mechanics introduced the concept of "exchange interaction", which had no physical justification (since no fundamental interactions are altered in the interchange of electrons, but should, if a bond is formed) explained the chemical bond (more accurately, "disguised" chemical bond into the quantum-mechanical effect of the "exchange interaction"), by this, confirming that the chemical bond is indeed a quantum-mechanical effect. The science of chemical bonding is only at the beginning of it's journey, and it is for today's students to make the most significant contribution to the theory of chemical bonding. And this will lead to fundamental changes in understanding both chemistry and physics. On the basis of modern concepts of quantum mechanics, chemical bonding can not be explained, fundamental assumptions are needed in quantum mechanics itself ... On the photo page from the work of L. Pauling "The application of the quantum mechanics to the structure of the Hydrogen molecule and Hydrogen molecule-ion and to related problems" Chem. Rev. 5, No. 2, p. 193, June (1928). Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond: REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (full version, 93 p.). http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5 1. Structure of the benzene molecule on the basis of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0152v1 2. Experimental confirmation of the existence of the three-electron bond and theoretical basis ot its existence. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0151v2 3. A short analysis of chemical bonds. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0149v2 4. Supplement to the theoretical justification of existence of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0150v2 5. Theory of three-electrone bond in the four works with brief comments. http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0022v2 6. REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (full version, 93 p.). http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5 7. Quantum-mechanical aspects of the L. Pauling's resonance theory. http://vixra.org/pdf/1702.0333v2 8. Quantum-mechanical analysis of the MO method and VB method from the position of PQS. http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1 Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra): http://vixra.org/author/bezverkh
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 05/10/09 Posts: 281 Last seen: 4 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Did you just post an article to support your thoughts with some physics journal article talking about quantum mechanics from the 1920's?
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Do you think that we know more about chemical bond than chemists knew in the 1920s? The reason for the formation of a chemical bond is not derived from the four fundamental interactions. Chemists actually postulate chemical bond (already 100 years). Note that even now, just like 100 years ago, a physicists can not strictly explain what a chemical bond is and why it exists. Fundamentally in understanding for 100 years nothing has changed - the two-electron bond "at the tip of the pen" as it could not be deduced then and now. Edited by chemist777 (07/14/17 03:42 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 05/10/09 Posts: 281 Last seen: 4 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Quote: Yes. or, more precisely. We understand more, at least over all in the physical sciences since all us had to learn this stuff in undergrad. Quote: ..derived from? I'm not sure what that would mean. But they are definitely explained with them and quantum mechanics. That was definitely stuff we talked about in physical/organic/inorganic chem, and in my quantum mechanics course. Quote: What do you mean, "can't explain what it is"? It doesn't have some metaphysical meaning. It just is, like most things. There is no meaning to it, it is just an interaction of subatomic molecules we observe due to the way physics works as far as we know. It's never going to be anything other than that. This thread makes the chemist in me cringe.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I can not say about quantum mechanics in general, but I can say about the chemical bond accurately, after a certain time we will know and understand much more about the chemical bond. Quantum mechanics uses the "exchange interaction" to explain the chemical bond, it certainly exists, but there is no physical justification. And one more important fact: when forming a chemical bond, the "electron concentration" (the electron distribution function) occurs between the nuclei, where the concentration region (volume) is much less when compared with atoms (Pauling for H2+ gives a value 6 times smaller than for the atom, to many-electrons bonds this value is also smaller). BUT, we know quite accurately that the Coulomb repulsion exactly works at these distances, and how then can the formation of the chemical bond be explained, in other words, what can "block" the repulsive energy between the electrons. The attraction to the nuclei does not pass, since 1/r^2 "guarantees" always greater repulsion between the coupling electrons than the attraction of the electrons of bond to the nuclei. As we see, there is still no physical justification for the formation of a chemical bond. I did not mention the fact the MO theory contradicts the principle of quantum superposition, that is, from AO linear combination can not be obtained MO. A deeper understanding of the nature of the chemical bond should clearly show why from AO linear combination can not be obtained MO, and why the MO is a "different quality". Still, I disagree with you, the understanding of the chemical bond will definitely be different. Edited by chemist777 (07/23/17 05:09 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 05/10/09 Posts: 281 Last seen: 4 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Quote: But once we are talking about quantum mechanics, we are talking about Shrodinger EQ functions. So we are talking about probabilities/densities of electrons. You don't try to find the electron, you merely realize that effectively the electrons are and aren't at any point in their orbitals. Since we are dealing with density not all volume is of equal value. These electrons in the bonds aren't in regions of extremely high electron density. These are the valence electrons bonding, The large point charges from two positive sources, somewhat screened by the inner electron density, are able to counter balance. Remember these electron densities are 3 dimensional shapes, so the half of the density of the inner electrons (and other, non bonding, valence electrons) will be further away from these electrons than either nucleus.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: You described the classics cited in the textbooks on quantum chemistry, it is also necessary to clarify that the electrons move (if one can so express) from each other at maximum distances (clearly, in order to minimize repulsion). But what the sense then in the interaction of two valence electrons? Really? In order to "dance" with each other at the most distant distances? In addition, this description (attraction - repulsion) should be solved "at the tip of the pen," for example, for such a simple system as a hydrogen molecule: two protons, between which move, repelled between themselves, two electrons, and are attracted to protons. But such a solution does not exist and can not exist, since the chemical bond is a quantum-mechanical effect and not the "work" of the forces of the Coulomb. Therefore, such a description will never have an analytically exact solution. This can be compared to the Rutherford atom when Bohr "came" and said that I "forbid" (or rather, I pustulate that it not exist) electromagnetic radiation when the electron moves around the nucleus, and take it as a fact. Similarly, here too: any attempt to explain the chemical bond by the simple mechanics of the motions of electrons and nuclei will be unsuccessful, it must be accepted as a fact that the chemical bond is not the motion of electrons in our usual sense of "somewhere" between the nuclei but something more that we call the quantum-mechanical effect or in other words the exchange interaction, or the Pauling resonance of two electrons. Edited by chemist777 (07/24/17 12:22 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 05/10/09 Posts: 281 Last seen: 4 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Quote: Yea, their like charges repel (just like the like charges of the nuclei repel). But they are not affixed next to each other. The electrons aren't restricted next to one another within the bond (that would be silly), they are moving. They're not required to be at maximum distance from each other, if they were they would have the nuclei between each of them because their orbitals still include the far sides of these atoms. Quote: Poor grammar like this will make all such debate, just like all of this thead, impossible to understand what you're really talking about. Quote: But such a solution does not exist and can not exist, Quote: False. They are the work of forces. This presumption of yours is literally hilarious. Quote: What? The reason that electromagnetic radiation from the electron can't be emitted, it is because if it did electrons would fall in on their nuclei due to their loss of energy. Quote: I never claimed that the chemical bond "was" the motion of electrons. I merely said that the chemical bond was the result of these things. The bond is due to the overlapping of these electron clouds/densities. For the H2 example it's the result of the spherical orbitals inside edges overlapping, so that when looking at the charge densities, and the interactions observed: The + + repulsion, the + - attraction, and the - - repulsion. These electrons overlap to the point that they are at some level of equilibrium. It's obvious that this MUST exist, because before they overlap their will only be coulomb repulsion. The same is true if the nuclei got much closer to one another (but due to the repulsion of very large + charges right next to each other. Have a nice day. Edited by Thebooedocksaint (07/24/17 05:37 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I understand your position, but I think time will show that the chemical bond is still a pure quantum-mechanical effect and not the "work" of the forces of Coulomb.
Have a nice day too.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/11/03 Posts: 29,258 |
| ||||||
|
All of chemistry is a quantum mechanical. The electro-magnetic force is well incorporated into quantum theory. Why do you call it "the forces of coulomb"? Sounds like something from lord of the rings.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Under the "forces of Coulomb" was meant electromagnetic interaction (I thought this no one doubted). Why so called? Let us take a motionless electron in the first report system and then we will only have an electrostatic (Coulomb) field, in another reporting system that moves with some constant speed relative to the first one, we will already have a magnetic field... In principle, everything is single and clear, but yes, a more correct and strict term is "electromagnetic interaction", which actually exists. Edited by chemist777 (07/31/17 11:30 AM)
| |||||||
|
It's the psychedelic movement! Registered: 04/20/01 Posts: 34,086 Loc: High pride! Last seen: 10 hours, 39 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Log in to view attachment -------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: The Apple-Glass Cyndrome - Someday
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
As I understand, it is necessary to explain the previous post about the electric and magnetic fields.
The interaction of fixed charges (point) is completely described by the Coulomb's law: F = k (q1*q2)/r^2 q1-----------------q2 r Let us consider the interaction of two point charges, which are at rest in the coordinate system K1. However, in another coordinate system K2, moving relative to K1, these charges move with identical speed and their interaction becomes more difficult. Since, due to the motion of charges, the electric field at each point of space is variable (E = (k*q)/r^2, Е — the electric field) and therefore a magnetic field is generated in the system K2 (there is no magnetic field in the K1 system, since the electric field is constant). We remember that an alternating electric field generates a magnetic field and an alternating magnetic field generates an electric field. Coulomb's law is insufficient to analyze the interaction of moving charges, and this is due to the relativistic properties of space and time and the relativistic equation of motion (the Coulomb's law has nothing to do with it). This follows from the following considerations. Relativistic equations of motion: dр/dt = F (1) Is invariant and has the same form in all inertial frame of reference. So in the coordinate system K2, which moves rectilinearly and uniformly with respect to K1: dр2/dt2 = F2 (2) The left-hand sides of equations (1) and (2) include purely mechanical quantities (the behavior of which is known when passing from one coordinate system to another). Consequently, the left-hand sides of equations (1) and (2) can be related by some formula. But then the right parts of these equations (the equations of force) are related. Such a bond is conditioned the requirement of relativistic invariance of the equation of motion. Since speed enter the left-hand sides of equations (1) and (2), we conclude that the interaction of moving charges depends on the speed of motion and does not reduce to the Coulomb force. Thus it is proved that the interaction of moving charges is realized not only by Coulomb force, but also by the force of another nature, called magnetic. P.S. All the above evidence is in any decent physics textbooks for universities and old as this world. Edited by chemist777 (08/06/17 06:00 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: The material about the three-electron bond is published in the American scientific peer-reviewed journal "Organic Chemistry: Current Research" (2017, Volume 6, Issue 2) in the work entitled "Theory of Three-Electron Bond in the Four Works with Brief Comments". link 1: https://www.omicsonline.org/open link 2: https://www.omicsonline.org/Arch Reference about the OMICS group which includes the journal "Organic Chemistry. Current Research": "OMICS International organizations 3000+ Global Conferences series Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members." link: https://www.omicsonline.org/orga Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond on viXra: Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra): http://vixra.org/author/bezverkh Edited by chemist777 (08/13/17 07:19 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 05/10/09 Posts: 281 Last seen: 4 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
More of the same nonsense I see. But i will check out the paper for shits and giggles.
Yes. The electromagnetic interaction. .. . Everyone here with any physics or chemistry background knows the multi electron problem... I don't think anyone really doesn't think there is a magnetic and electrostatic interaction... Thats why the spin up and spin down electrons have differing energies due to the induced magnetic field of their orbit opposing/aligning with the induced magnetic field from the spin of the electron... Making the dickish comment "and old as this world" is an awfully bold thing to say for a concept that has only been embraced within the last one hundred or so years.. I genuinely forget... But are electrons moving relativisticly If I wasn't posting from my phone Id just check.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Do not be nervous, not be rude Thebooedocksaint.
You have all correctly understood from the previous comments: a field in an atom or molecule can not be a conservative field by definition, and do not look for excuses where they do not exist. And if the field is not conservative field, then tell me how the chemical bond is formed, I'll listen carefully ... P.S. It is not necessary to run into the greatest theory in physics (Special Theory of Relativity), if you do not like it, find the error or specify but do not criticize it in a wordless way. Edited by chemist777 (09/08/17 01:18 PM)
| |||||||
|
Cosmic Pond Scum Registered: 03/16/17 Posts: 4,180 Last seen: 10 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
Quote: His English and his math kind of suck but the concept of a three electron bond is actually pretty useful for people who are studying compounds where concerns like conjugation and resonance structures are relevant.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: The concept of three-electron bonds outputs chemical bond issue on a completely different level. And there is no doubt that in due course there will be an experimental confirmation of the existence of a three-electron link and a theoretical justification (quantitative), which will show the chemical bond from a completely different angle of view. But despite the philology (some are dissatisfied) from the previous post, the problem remains: if the field in the molecule is not a conservative field (as shown using the special theory of relativity), then how do we explain and describe the chemical bond... P.S. About mathematics. Theory should not be difficult to be true. On the contrary, the simpler and clearer postulates and fewer of them all - the better. In the theory of three-electron bond there is one postulate: it is adopted that a three-electron bond exists, everything else is logically deduced. I remember the story of the criticism of the publication of Christian Doppler (an Austrian mathematician and physicist, the Doppler effect), the main reproach was that such a simple theory (in the mathematical sense) can not be true, all the more so because it is only written on 8 or 9 pages... Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do And also about the simplicity, here are the Feynman diagrams (an intuitive, simple and effective way of describing interactions in Quantum field theory): Oh my God and here there are only two-dimensional vectors, where is the difficulty?... Richard Feynman was a brilliant physicist and he said wonderful words: "Do not fool yourself", do not forget them (I will not quote the words of the great Einstein about the way to fool yourself) ... Edited by chemist777 (09/09/17 04:45 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 05/10/09 Posts: 281 Last seen: 4 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
So are you just suggesting that the two and the three electron bonding exists, or are you implying there is only three electron bonding exists? Because if it is the former you certainly did not express your opinion as such.
I feel like many of your critiques you have given me apply just as much to three electrons as they do with two. It's been a few years since i dealt with fields, but shouldn't the electric field created by two (usually larger) point charges that are (usually) closer to the individual electrons produce a larger field? Do you mind me asking what you believe the correct interpretation of quantum theory (with atomic orbitals) is, as I know most people either try to disregard thinking about it or are rather strictly for or against certain interpretations.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 1. Exist three-electron bonds (multiplicity 1.5), two-electron bonds (multiplicity 1), one-electron bonds (multiplicity 0.5), etc., there are no contradictions here. The nature of the chemical bond is the same for all types of bonds, and therefore chemical bond notices refer to any type of bond (three-electron, single, double, triple, one-electron). I am sure that in the future we will show from the physical point of view the qualitative unity of the chemical bond of any multiplicity (the physical essence is one). In principle, this is inevitable, and this is only a matter of time, as is the experimental confirmation of the three-electron bond and its quantitative description. The above also confirms the bond energy. Look, the bond energy (calculated per one electron) in the one-electron bond is greater than in the two-electron bond (and what are they fundamentally different from the physical point of view?): the energy of the chemical bond in H2 + counting for one electron is even greater than in the hydrogen molecule. Ponder this fact: there is no electronic pair, there is no exchange interaction, and the bond energy per one electron is more than in the classical two-electron coupling … Compare, the dissociation energy in H2 + is 2.648 eV, and the dissociation energy in the hydrogen molecule is 4.477 eV, that is, in the recalculation for one electron we get (4.477 / 2) 2.239 eV, which is easy to understand considering the repulsion between electrons. 2. The electric field created at a point by two sources is naturally the vector sum of the fields of individual sources, this is the principle of superposition (the intensity of the electrostatic field created at a given point by a system of charges is the vector sum of the field intensities of individual charges), and otherwise can not be ... And more or less it depends on the specific phenomenon. 3. Let's remember the history. The atomic orbital (AO) is a one-electron wave function obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation. E. Schrödinger considered an electron in an atom as a negatively charged cloud whose density is proportional to the square of the value of the wave function at the corresponding point of the atom. In this form, the concept of an electron cloud was also perceived in theoretical chemistry. But from the physical point of view, it is true that the electron is a particle of a certain size (now we will not analyze the radius of an electron, etc. problems), that is, it is not a wave or a cloud with a negative charge. There was a contradiction between the treatment in chemistry and the fact that there is an electron in the real world (physical interpretation). Therefore, Max Born substantiated the probabilistic interpretation of the square of the wave function. E. Schrödinger did not immediately, but still agreed with the arguments of M. Born. This is a modern point of view, and note that it is not contradictory, it is true from the point of view of physics and from the point of view of chemistry. Therefore, personally I like everything (probabilistic interpretation of the wave function), this is a typical wave description, which corresponds to reality. And the different interpretations of E. Schrödinger and M. Born were the elimination of contradictions in understanding between chemists and physicists, such a "mutual agreement between physicists and chemists". Edited by chemist777 (09/16/17 07:28 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
The Pauli exclusion principle and the chemical bond. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond.
The present work shows the inapplicability of the Pauli principle to chemical bond, and a new theoretical model of the chemical bond is proposed based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Review (127 pages). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond) See pp. 88 - 104. http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v1 The Pauli exclusion principle and the chemical bond. The Pauli exclusion principle — this is the fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, which asserts that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integral spin) can not simultaneously be in the same quantum state. Wolfgang Pauli, a Swiss theoretical physicist, formulated this principle in 1925 [1]. In chemistry exactly Pauli exclusion principle often considered as a ban on the existence of three-electron bonds with a multiplicity of 1.5, but it can be shown that Pauli exclusion principle does not prohibit the existence of three-electron bonds. To do this, analyze the Pauli exclusion principle in more detail. According to Pauli exclusion principle in a system consisting of identical fermions, two (or more) particles can not be in the same states [2]. The corresponding formulas of the wave functions and the determinant are given in the reference (this is a standard consideration of the fermion system), but we will concentrate our attention on the derivation: "... Of course, in this formulation, Pauli exclusion principle can only be applied to systems of weakly interacting particles, when one can speak (at least approximately on the states of individual particles) "[2]. That is, Pauli exclusion principle can only be applied to weakly interacting particles, when one can talk about the states of individual particles. But if we recall that any classical chemical bond is formed between two nuclei (this is a fundamental difference from atomic orbitals), which somehow "pull" the electrons one upon another, it is logical to assume that in the formation of a chemical bond, the electrons can no longer be regarded as weakly interacting particles . This assumption is confirmed by the earlier introduced notion of a chemical bond as a separate semi-virtual particle (natural component of the particle "parts" can not be weakly interacting). Representations of the chemical bond given in the chapter "The Principle of Heisenberg's Uncertainty and the Chemical Bond" categorically reject the statements about the chemical bond as a system of weakly interacting electrons. On the contrary, it follows from the above description that in the chemical bond, the electrons "lose" their individuality and "occupy" the entire chemical bond, that is, the electrons in the chemical bond "interact as much as possible", which directly indicates the inapplicability of the Pauli exclusion principle to the chemical bond. Moreover, the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in momentum and coordinate, in fact, strictly indicates that in the chemical bond, electrons are a system of "maximally" strongly interacting particles, and the whole chemical bond is a separate particle in which there is no place for the notion of an "individual" electron, its velocity, coordinate, energy, etc., description. This is fundamentally not true. The chemical bond is a separate particle, called us "semi-virtual particle", it is a composite particle that consists of individual electrons (strongly interacting), and spatially located between the nuclei. Thus, the introduction of a three-electron bond with a multiplicity of 1.5 is justified from the chemical point of view (simply explains the structure of the benzene molecule, aromaticity, the structure of organic and inorganic substances, etc.) is confirmed by the Pauli exclusion principle and the logical assumption of a chemical bond as system of strongly interacting particles (actually a separate semi-virtual particle), and as a consequence the inapplicability of the Pauli exclusion principle to a chemical bond. 1. Pauli W. Uber den Zusammenhang des Abschlusses der Elektronengruppen in Atom mit der Komplexstruktur der Spektren, - Z. Phys., 1925, 31, 765-783. 2. A.S. Davydov. Quantum mechanics. Second edition. Publishing house "Science". Moscow, 1973, p. 334. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond. For further analysis of chemical bond, let us consider the Compton wavelength of an electron: λc.е. = h/(me*c)= 2.4263 * 10^(-12) m The Compton wavelength of an electron is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose energy is equal to the rest energy of the electron itself (the standard conclusion is given below): λ = h/(m*v), E = h*γ, E = me*c^2, c = γ*λ, γ = c/λ E = h*γ, E = h*(c/λ) = me*c^2, λc.е. = h/(me*c) where λ is the Louis de Broglie wavelength, me is the mass of the electron, c, γ is the speed and frequency of light, and h is the Planck constant. It is more interesting to consider what happens to an electron in a region with linear dimensions smaller than the Compton wavelength of an electron. According to Heisenberg uncertainty in this area, we have a quantum mechanical uncertainty in the momentum of at least m*c and a quantum mechanical uncertainty in the energy of at least me*c^2 : Δp ≥ mе*c and ΔE ≥ me*c^2 which is sufficient for the production of virtual electron-positron pairs. Therefore, in such a region the electron can no longer be regarded as a "point object", since it (an electron) spends part of its time in the state "electron + pair (positron + electron)". As a result of the above, an electron at distances smaller than the Compton length is a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom and its interaction should be described within the framework of quantum field theory. Most importantly, the transition to the intermediate state "electron + pair (positron + electron)" carried per time ~ λc.е./c Δt = λc.е./c = 2.4263*10^(-12)/c = 8.1*10^(-20) s Now we will try to use all the above-mentioned to describe the chemical bond using Einstein's theory of relativity and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. To do this, let's make one assumption: suppose that the wavelength of an electron on a Bohr orbit (the hydrogen atom) is the same Compton wavelength of an electron, but in another frame of reference, and as a result there is a 137-times greater Compton wavelength (due to the effects of relativity theory): λc.е. = h/(me*c) = 2.4263*10^(-12) m λb. = h/(me*v)= 2*π*R = 3.31*10^(-10) m λb./λc.е.= 137 where R= 0.527 Å, the Bohr radius. Since the De Broglie wavelength in a hydrogen atom (according to Bohr) is 137 times larger than the Compton wavelength of an electron, it is quite logical to assume that the energy interactions will be 137 times weaker (the longer the photon wavelength, the lower the frequency, and hence the energy ). We note that 1 / 137.036 is a fine structure constant, the fundamental physical constant characterizing the force of electromagnetic interaction was introduced into science in 1916 year by the German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld as a measure of relativistic corrections in describing atomic spectra within the framework of the model of the N. Bohr atom. To describe the chemical bond, we use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: Δx * Δp ≥ ћ/2 Given the weakening of the energy interaction 137 times, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be written in the form: Δx * Δp ≥ (ћ*137)/2 According to the last equation, the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the momentum of an electron in a chemical bond must be at least me * c, and the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the energy is not less than me * c ^ 2, which should also be sufficient for the production of virtual electron-positron pairs. Therefore, in the field of chemical bonding, in this case, an electron can not be regarded as a "point object", since it (an electron) will spend part of its time in the state "electron + pair (positron + electron)", and therefore its interaction should be described in the framework of quantum field theory. This approach makes it possible to explain how, in the case of many-electron chemical bonds (two-electron, three-electron, etc.), repulsion between electrons is overcome: since the chemical bond is actually a "boiling mass" of electrons and positrons, virtual positrons "help" overcome the repulsion between electrons. This approach assumes that the chemical bond is in fact a closed spatial bag (a potential well in the energy sense), in which "boiling" of real electrons and also virtual positrons and electrons occurs, and the "volume" of this potential bag is actually a "volume" of chemical bond and also the spatial measure of the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in the position of the electron. Strictly speaking, with such a consideration, the electron no longer has a certain energy, momentum, coordinates, and is no longer a "point particle", but actually takes up the "whole volume" of chemical bonding. It can be argued that in the chemical bond a single electron is depersonalized and loses its individuality, in fact it does not exist, but there is a "boiling mass" of real electrons and virtual positrons and electrons that by fluctuate change each other. That is, the chemical bond is actually a separate particle, as already mentioned, a semi-virtual particle. Moreover, this approach can be extended to the structure of elementary particles such as an electron or a positron: an elementary particle in this consideration is a fluctuating vacuum closed in a certain spatial bag, which is a potential well for these fluctuations. It is especially worth noting that in this consideration, electrons are strongly interacting particles, and therefore the Pauli principle is not applicable to chemical bond (for more details, see the section "The Pauli Principle and the Chemical Bond") and does not prohibit the existence of the same three-electron bonds with a multiplicity of 1.5. See pp. 88 - 104 Review (135 pages, full version). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v3 Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond: Review (135 pages, full version). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v3 1. Structure of the benzene molecule on the basis of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0152v1 2. Experimental confirmation of the existence of the three-electron bond and theoretical basis ot its existence. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0151v2 3. A short analysis of chemical bonds. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0149v2 4. Supplement to the theoretical justification of existence of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0150v2 5. Theory of three-electrone bond in the four works with brief comments. http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0022v2 6. REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (93 p.). http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5 7. Quantum-mechanical aspects of the L. Pauling's resonance theory. http://vixra.org/pdf/1702.0333v2 8. Quantum-mechanical analysis of the MO method and VB method from the position of PQS. http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1 9. Review (135 pages, full version). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v3 Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra): http://vixra.org/author/bezverkh Edited by chemist777 (12/15/17 05:39 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Notes on the chemical bond.
If we analyze the formation of the chemical bond (one-electron, many-electron) strictly theoretically, then it is difficult to understand the cause of the formation of the chemical bond. There are several problems here: 1. When a chemical bond is formed, when the domain of "existence" of electrons actually decreases (the "volume" of the chemical bond (MO) is much smaller than the "volume" of the corresponding AO, this was emphasized by L. Pauling) in comparison with the original AO ((in other words , that the electron distribution function in a diatomic molecule is much more concentrated than in the case of atoms), the repulsion between electrons inevitably must increase significantly. And then according to Coulomb's law (F=f(1/r ^ 2)) this repulsion can not be compensated in any way This is also noted by L. Pauling, and we assume (pp. 88 - 89, Review. Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli Exclusion Principle, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Chemical Bond). ( http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2 2. In addition, using A. Einstein's theory of relativity, it can be shown that, in the motion of electrons, the field in a molecule can not by definition be a conservative field (pp. 90 - 92, http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2 3. It is also especially worth noting that when analyzing the Pauli principle (pages 103-105, http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2 4. It is shown (pp. 105 — 117, http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2 5. See pp. 116 – 117, Quantum-Mechanical Analysis of the MO Method and VB Method from the Position of PQS. http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2 «...Therefore, in order to "restore" the chemical bond in the corresponding equations and to exclude the inconsistency with the quantum superposition principle, it is necessary to not express MO in members of a linear combination of AO, but postulate the existence of MO as a new fundamental quality that describes a specific chemical bond and is not derived from simpler structural elements. Then we will "return" the chemical bond to the calculation methods and possibly significantly simplify the quantum chemical calculations. This is due to the fact that the energy of the chemical bonds is well known, and since the MO will describe the chemical bond (and the chemical bond energy is known), it will be easy to calculate the MO energy simply by substraction the chemical bond energy from the AO energy. Since the chemical bond is the result of the interaction of fermions and they interact [84] according to the Hückel rule (4n + 2) (or 2n, n - unpaired), we can schematically depict molecular orbitals similarly to atomic orbitals. The number of electrons according to Hückel's rule will be: 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, … Accordingly, the molecular orbitals of the chemical bond are denoted as follows: MO (s) is a molecular s-orbital, 1 cell, can contain up to 2 electrons. MO (p) is a molecular p-orbital, 3 cells, can contain up to 6 electrons. MO (d) - molecular d-orbital, 5 cells, can contain 10 electrons. MO (f) is a molecular f-orbital, 7 cells, can contain up to 14 electrons. MO (g) is a molecular g-orbital, 9 cells, can contain up to 18 electrons. Then the usual single bond will be described by the molecular s-orbitale (MO(s)). To describe the double bond, we need to assume that it is formed from two equivalent single bonds (as pointed out by L. Pauling [85]), and is then described by two molecular s-orbitals (2 MO(s)). The triple bond will be described by a molecular p-orbital (MO (p)), then all six electrons of the triple bond will occupy one molecular p-orbit, which very well explains the difference between acetylene and ethylene (meaning C-H acidity). In benzene 18 - electronic cyclic system can occupy one molecular g-orbital (MO(g))...». Taking into account the above reasoning about the chemical bond, we can say that modern concepts of the chemical bond can not be strictly theoretically fair, but rather qualitative with empirical quantitative calculations. Using quantum mechanics, namely the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and A. Einstein's theory of relativity, one can explain the reason for the formation of a chemical bond (pp. 92 - 103 http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2 Review (135 pages, full version). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v3 Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra): http://vixra.org/author/bezverkh This screenshots (foto) (most with explanation) see by this link. Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (Archive.org): https://archive.org/details/@thr Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (Scribd): https://www.scribd.com/user/2892 Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (Amazon): https://www.amazon.com/Bezverkhn Edited by chemist777 (12/15/17 05:35 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I will add a little about L.Poling's theory of resonance.
It is important to understand that there are no resonance structures in reality, and the resonance theory is simply a very convenient and intuitive model for describing benzene. The concept of "resonance" (in L. Pauling's theory of resonance) does not imply a really occurring resonance between the Kekule structures, it is just a good name for the theory. Successful, because it clearly indicates that at the resonance of the Kekule structures a real molecule of benzene is formed, which has an electronic structure intermediate between them (Kekule structures). And most importantly, I especially note that the real structure of benzene will have energy below the energy of the Kekule structures (that is why the "resonance theory" is a decrease in the energy of the system, and as it is known at real resonance (as a physical process), one can say " ejection "of energy). This also applies to chemical bonds. L. Pauling, the theory of resonance extended not only to benzene, but also to chemical bonds (see “Pauling L. Nature of the chemical bond». Translated from english by M.E. Dyatkina under the guidance of professor Y.K. Sirkin. State Scientific and Technical Publishing House of Chemical Literature. Moscow, Leningrad, 1947), in fact it was the only systematic approach to describing the chemical bond. And despite the fact that in a strictly theoretical analysis (within the framework of quantum mechanics) the resonance theory contradicts the principle of quantum superposition, the idea of resonance (that is, the idea of a real physical process) as an approach for studying the chemical bond is very successful and fruitful. Since it is precisely the idea of resonance that clearly indicates that in the formation of a chemical bond there must be a "zest", that is, a real physical process that leads to the release of energy (binding energy). The classical, modern representation of the chemical bond, in fact, ignores the physical justification of the chemical bond. From modern ideas, there is no reason why energy should be released when a chemical bond is formed. Conversely, with the concentration of electrons in the inter-nuclear region, that is, when a chemical bond is formed, it is logical to expect an increase in the energy of the system (the Coulomb repulsion between electrons increases). Moreover, some physicists (or quantum chemists) generally deny the existence of a chemical bond between two atoms and believe that the chemical bond is a successful concept for non-physicists on the binding of atoms. Naturally, chemists categorically disagree with this, although they understand the reasons for such a perception of the chemical bond. It is worth noting that Heisenberg first used the concept of resonance in quantum mechanics to study the quantum states of helium (W. Heizenberg, Z. Phys. 39, 499 (1926)). L. Pauling spent one year (1926-1927) spent in Europe, in the alma of the mother of quantum mechanics. He actually studied quantum mechanics at A. Sommerfeld (Munich) and at the seminars of E. Schrödinger (Zurich), and the great physicists who stood at the origins of quantum mechanics had a profound influence on him. After this brief (only 1 year) business trip, L.Pauling understood that only quantum mechanics could be the theoretical basis for understanding the chemical bond. Moreover, now it is obvious, the physical essence, the physical substantiation of various processes for it became vital, therefore in the future the theory of resonance was born. Here some explanations are needed. In the 20-30s of the 20th century, after the birth of quantum mechanics, many great physicists tried to solve the problem of chemical bonding. But all their attempts were unsuccessful, or rather not very successful. But this should not be taken as a failure, on the contrary, they clearly indicated the problem: if the reason for the formation of a chemical bond is explained by a real physical process (obviously, it should be so), then an acceptable solution could not be found. Moreover, the creation of MO and VB methods, and in fact the introduction of exchange interaction in chemistry to explain the chemical bond, did not solve this problem, since the exchange interaction has no physical meaning, it is a "purely" formal approach, and this is well known in quantum mechanics. In addition, both the MO method and the VB method, and, naturally, the exchange interaction contradict the principle of quantum superposition, that is, quantum mechanics itself, see pp. 3 - 7 http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1 The resonance theory is a "pure" chemical theory, the idea of which implies that there must be a physical process (real), which is the reason for the formation of a chemical bond, we assume that therefore Pauling called the theory "resonance theory". And there is no doubt that only this approach will lead to a full understanding of the chemical bond. For this, it is necessary to simultaneously apply quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity of A. Einstein (see pp. 92 - 103, http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1 How successful is the application of the concept of a real physical process can be demonstrated by the following example. In 1935, in an article by Linus Pauling, L. O. Brockway and J. Y. Beach entitled "The Dependence of interatomic distance on single bond-double bond resonance", the multiplicity of the bond in benzene was found to be 1.5 (based on two Kekule structures). But this way of calculating Pauling within the framework of the theory of resonance in 1937 was criticized by William Penney (English mathematician and professor of mathematical physics at the Imperial College London). The essence of the objections is the following: if the multiplicity of the bond in benzene is 1.5, then it follows logically that the heats of formation of benzene and cyclohexatriene (or one of the "resonant" Kekule structures) also coincide, which contradicts the resonance theory (the real benzene molecule should have a lower energy) . From this it follows logically that the multiplicity in benzene should be greater than 1.5 and W. G. Penney received the number 1.62. As we can see, the concept of a real physical process (since it is a decrease in the energy of a real benzene molecule) led to the understanding that the multiplicity of the bond in benzene should be greater than 1.5, which was shown by quantum chemical calculations (1.67). The concept of three-electron coupling explains why there is an increase in the multiplicity: this is a consequence of the interaction of two three-electron bonds on opposite sides of benzene (with different spins), benzene just "shrinks, decreases" a little. Calculations give a multiplicity of 1.66 (three-electron coupling, see pages 16-19 of http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2 See new theoretical model of the chemical bond is proposed based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle pp. 92 - 103 Review (127 pages, full version). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2 Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond: Review (135 pages, full version). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v3 1. Structure of the benzene molecule on the basis of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0152v1 2. Experimental confirmation of the existence of the three-electron bond and theoretical basis ot its existence. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0151v2 3. A short analysis of chemical bonds. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0149v2 4. Supplement to the theoretical justification of existence of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0150v2 5. Theory of three-electrone bond in the four works with brief comments. http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0022v2 6. REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (93 p.). http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5 7. Quantum-mechanical aspects of the L. Pauling's resonance theory. http://vixra.org/pdf/1702.0333v2 8. Quantum-mechanical analysis of the MO method and VB method from the position of PQS. http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1 9. Review (135 pages, full version). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v3 Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra):http://vixra.org/author/ This screenshots (foto) (most with explanation) see by this link. Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (Archive.org): https://archive.org/details/@thr Moreover, in the opinion of the authors, the development of the theory of three-electron bond and chemical bonding by Heisenberg will lead not only to the quantitative calculation of the chemical bond (complete) but also the application of these calculations to the synthesis of substances (use in the laboratory) and the prediction of biological activity of chemicals. It means that it will be possible to easily calculate the basic properties of a molecule (substance) by the structural formula, and the accuracy must be such that synthesis of substances is not needed. Similarly, with biological activity: the development of the theory (for example, the development of electronegativity in organic compounds, etc.) chemical bond should lead to a deeper understanding of the dependence of biological activity on the chemical structure, which undoubtedly will have an explosive effect on the appearance of new drugs (and new classes ) and significantly simplify the task of searching for new substances in the structure. Edited by chemist777 (02/11/18 06:20 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 07/04/15 Posts: 67 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
One-electron bond in He2+.
And He2 + and H2 + are equally stable, because they are connected by a one-electron bond: compare the bond energies and the bond length (see page 262 L. Pauling, Nature of the chemical bond/translation from English by M. E. Dyatkina, edited by Prof. Ya. K. Syrkin. M. L .: GNTI Chemical Literature, 1947): E (He2 +) = 58 kcal/mole E (H2 +) = 61 kcal/mole L (He2 +) = 1.09 Å L (H2 +) = 1.06 Å The helium atom has 2 electrons and one energy level (1S). Therefore in He2 + there are 3 electrons. The assumption that the bond in He2 + is three-electron is incorrect. The multiplicity of the bond is still determined by the fundamental rule of the octet. Therefore, it is easy to show that the bond in He2 + is one-electron (hence its multiplicity is 0.5). For this it is sufficient to apply the octet rule to He2 +, look at the image. From the picture it is obvious that in order for the octet rule to be fulfilled in He2 +, the bond must be one-electron (only one electron can belong to both atoms simultaneously). Moreover, it can be concluded that the octet rule in a "condensed" form reflects the balance of the Coulomb repulsive-attraction forces between the electrons and the nuclei. Since, with the example of He2 +, it is obvious that, for a three-electron bond, the nuclei would remain without electrons, which led to a strong increase in the repulsion between the helium nuclei. The fact that using the MO method in He2 + yields a three-electron bond (with a multiplicity of 0.5) should not be misleading, since the MO method contradicts quantum mechanics. See: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1 “Quantum-Mechanical Analysis of the MO Method and VB Method from the Position of PQS”. The MO method are analyzed using the principle of quantum superposition (PQS). It is shown that the main assumption of the molecular orbitals method (namely, that the molecular orbital can be represented like a linear combination of overlapping atomic orbitals) enters into an insurmountable contradiction with the principle of quantum superposition. See the answer to the quorum: https://www.quora.com/Which-is-m If we do a similar procedure with oxygen in which there are two three-electron bonds, then it becomes immediately clear why the oxygen multiplicity is 2 (in spite of two three-electron bonds). Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond: Review. Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v4 https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. The present work shows: 1. The present work shows the inapplicability of the Pauli principle to the chemical bond (pp. 103-105). 2. In addition, a new theoretical model of the chemical bond is proposed on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (pp. 92-103). 3. That is, in fact, in this paper it is shown that modern concepts of the chemical bond can not be strictly considered theoretically true, but rather qualitative with empirical quantitative calculations. See all works: 1. Structure of the benzene molecule on the basis of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0152v1 2. Experimental confirmation of the existence of the three-electron bond and theoretical basis ot its existence. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0151v2 3. A short analysis of chemical bonds. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0149v2 4. Supplement to the theoretical justification of existence of the three-electron bond. http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0150v2 5. Theory of three-electrone bond in the four works with brief comments. http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0022v2 6. REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (93 p.). http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5 7. Quantum-mechanical aspects of the L. Pauling's resonance theory. http://vixra.org/pdf/1702.0333v2 8. Quantum-mechanical analysis of the MO method and VB method from the position of PQS. http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1 9. Review (138 pages, full version). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v4 https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. 10. Principle of Constancy and Finiteness of the Speed of Gravitational Interaction and Dark Matter. http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0136v1 viXra: http://vixra.org/author/bezverkh SSNR: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_ Edited by chemist777 (06/12/18 04:00 PM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Five fold chromium bonding | 1,371 | 6 | 11/13/05 09:52 PM by Baby_Hitler | ||
![]() |
Good Chemistry Book | 16,936 | 16 | 09/04/11 02:34 PM by rnastruc | ||
![]() |
Electronic nose 'sniffs out cancer' | 928 | 2 | 05/08/03 06:01 AM by TackleBerry | ||
![]() |
How to learn chemistry? | 3,559 | 10 | 02/26/07 12:50 AM by Legend9123 | ||
![]() |
need some help with my chemistry lab | 1,532 | 9 | 09/21/03 09:20 PM by ToxicMan | ||
![]() |
Simple Chemistry/Physics Question | 978 | 17 | 09/11/08 07:37 PM by buritobomb | ||
![]() |
Chemistry of McKenna's Invisible Landscape | 1,008 | 2 | 10/18/06 08:08 PM by UnderNose | ||
![]() |
Just found the mass of an electron... | 2,462 | 18 | 02/21/08 12:06 PM by skydog |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner 9,783 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||


Sorry for the typo in the word system.
