Home | Community | Message Board


Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Science and Technology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop: pH Test Strips

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Offlinechemist777
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 07/04/15
Posts: 58
Last seen: 5 days, 12 hours
Re: chemistry, benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond [Re: DieCommie]
    #24520225 - 07/31/17 01:26 PM (1 month, 21 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
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.




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 01:30 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 30,234
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 46 minutes, 49 seconds
Re: chemistry, benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond [Re: chemist777]
    #24532764 - 08/05/17 04:43 PM (1 month, 16 days ago)
Log in to view attachment

^












--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: Johnny Price- Marijuana, The Devil Flower



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinechemist777
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 07/04/15
Posts: 58
Last seen: 5 days, 12 hours
Re: chemistry, benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond [Re: Learyfan]
    #24534119 - 08/06/17 07:38 AM (1 month, 15 days ago)

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 08:00 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinechemist777
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 07/04/15
Posts: 58
Last seen: 5 days, 12 hours
Re: chemistry, benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond [Re: Thebooedocksaint]
    #24548537 - 08/12/17 05:28 PM (1 month, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Thebooedocksaint said:
I, personally, would prefer a (recent) peer reviewed journal article.




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-access/theory-of-threeelectron-bond-in-the-four-works-with-brief-comments-2161-0401-1000182.pdf

link 2: https://www.omicsonline.org/ArchiveOCCR/articleinpress-organic-chemistry-current-research-open-access.php

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/organic-chemistry-current-research.php

Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond on viXra:

Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra): http://vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych


Edited by chemist777 (08/13/17 09:19 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThebooedocksaint
Stranger


Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 277
Last seen: 8 days, 4 hours
Re: chemistry, benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond [Re: chemist777]
    #24612963 - 09/08/17 05:31 AM (13 days, 16 hours ago)

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.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinechemist777
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 07/04/15
Posts: 58
Last seen: 5 days, 12 hours
Re: chemistry, benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond [Re: Thebooedocksaint]
    #24613762 - 09/08/17 03:10 PM (13 days, 7 hours ago)

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 03:18 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 792
Last seen: 1 hour, 16 minutes
Re: chemistry, benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond [Re: Thebooedocksaint]
    #24614348 - 09/08/17 07:16 PM (13 days, 3 hours ago)

Quote:

Thebooedocksaint said:
More of the same nonsense I see. But i will check out the paper for shits and giggles.



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.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinechemist777
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 07/04/15
Posts: 58
Last seen: 5 days, 12 hours
Re: chemistry, benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond [Re: chibiabos]
    #24615219 - 09/09/17 04:35 AM (12 days, 17 hours ago)

Quote:

chibiabos said:
Quote:

Thebooedocksaint said:
More of the same nonsense I see. But i will check out the paper for shits and giggles.



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.






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/Doppler_effect

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?... :smile:



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 06:45 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThebooedocksaint
Stranger


Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 277
Last seen: 8 days, 4 hours
Re: chemistry, benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond [Re: chemist777]
    #24626649 - 09/13/17 05:30 PM (8 days, 4 hours ago)

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.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinechemist777
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 07/04/15
Posts: 58
Last seen: 5 days, 12 hours
Re: chemistry, benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond [Re: Thebooedocksaint]
    #24634372 - 09/16/17 07:34 AM (5 days, 14 hours ago)

Quote:

Thebooedocksaint said:
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.





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 :smile:
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 09:28 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop: pH Test Strips

General Interest >> Science and Technology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Five fold chromium bonding Shmoppy McGillicuddy 1,109 6 11/13/05 11:52 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* Good Chemistry Book TheCow 15,850 16 09/04/11 04:34 PM
by rnastruc
* Electronic nose 'sniffs out cancer' TackleBerry 627 2 05/08/03 08:01 AM
by TackleBerry
* How to learn chemistry? astabooty 3,049 10 02/26/07 02:50 AM
by Legend9123
* need some help with my chemistry lab wrestler_az 1,124 9 09/21/03 11:20 PM
by ToxicMan
* Careers In Chemistry question? ZombieLuvin 1,401 19 02/02/05 08:59 AM
by cb9fl
* Chemistry of McKenna's Invisible Landscape supercollider 815 2 10/18/06 10:08 PM
by UnderNose
* Just found the mass of an electron... DieCommie 1,899 18 02/21/08 02:06 PM
by skydog

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Lana, trendal, automan
4,679 topic views. 0 members, 8 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Edabea
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 17 queries.