Nuclear physics == chemistry? [Archive]

Tom Mattson

Apr16-04, 10:10 AM

Yes well I read it in my chemistry book, University Chemistry book, (x 2) so that is where I learned it from, and that is how, and where, I recall it from, sooooo....forgive me..... (or not)

P.s. Chemistry is nuclear physics...in a way, the division is in your head, NOT in reality.......

No, that is not true. The chemical properties of a substance are completely determined by its electronic structure. The nuclear properties of a substance are completely determined by its....well....nulcear structure.

If you want proof of the separation between nuclear physics and chemistry, you have only to consider that different isotopes of the same atomic species have the same chemical properties but not the same nuclear properties, and that different ions of the same atomic species have the same nuclear properties but not the same chemical properties.

edit: filled in an omission

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr16-04, 11:00 AM

So please forgive me Chroot/Warren, but Nuclear Physics is Elemental Chemistry, quite literally, I accessed a reference to the exact figures of the differences between Carbon and Oxygen.....

Oxygen is # 8 (protons) and weighs in at ~16, (protons and neutrons) carbon is # 6 (protons) and weighs in at ~12 (protons and neutrons) hence, the difference is, respectively, 2 (protons) and 4, (protons and neutrons) or a helium nuclie/alpha particle

Density @ STP of Carbon is 2.2 g/cm3

Density @ STP of Oxygen is 1.404 g/L

Oxygen is a gas, Carbon is a solid, there is only a difference in them, of four nucleons, and two electrons...usually....

Carbon forms graphite at STP, hexagonal (and/or planar?) bonding angle, but forms Diamonds (octahedral/dodecahedral/cubic bonding angle) at greater Temp. and press. so we can 'infer' that the nucleons (protons and neutrons) are re-arranging themselves as to evoke different bonding angles at different Ambient Energy Pressure (AEP) Conditions, Nuclear Physics directly into Chemistry....as bonded together as an atom..............literally?

Although there is no evidence to prove that, the inference made, there is also the 'absence of evidence' that tells us it is a place to be looking, just that, to date, no one seems ot have come up with anything workable to that end, a drawing of just how the nucleons (Protons and Neutrons) are arranged....and how they interact, too......:cool:

(To Two's Too!)

BTW just saw/read Toms post so, the chemical properties are determined by it's electronic structure.......which is determined by it's nuclear structure, so where's the beef?

chroot

Apr16-04, 11:20 AM

Give it up, MRP, you're wrong. The inverse beta decay is not a chemical reaction. End of story. Why do you always argue plain facts this way?

- Warren

Tom Mattson

Apr16-04, 11:48 AM

BTW just saw/read Toms post so, the chemical properties are determined by it's electronic structure.......which is determined by it's nuclear structure, so where's the beef?

Because electron structure is not determined by nuclear structure. Electron structure is determined by the charge on the nucleus--that's it. As I said, various isotopes of a species have identical chemical behavior, but different nuclear behavior, and different ions of a species have identical nuclear behavior but different chemical behavior.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr16-04, 07:25 PM

Give it up, MRP, you're wrong. The inverse beta decay is not a chemical reaction. End of story. Why do you always argue plain facts this way?

- WarrenUhmmm please re-read my post #42, Uhmmm, never said it was a chemical reaction, said I had "Learned that knowledge from my chemistry BOOK"

.....uhmmm, so in responce to what I emboldened, in your writing, FOOEY!

(your wrong)

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr16-04, 07:34 PM

Because electron structure is not determined by nuclear structure. Electron structure is determined by the charge on the nucleus--that's it. As I said, various isotopes of a species have identical chemical behavior, but different nuclear behavior, and different ions of a species have identical nuclear behavior but different chemical behavior.Yes Tom, the Chemical Properties are determined by the Electronic structure, but what elemental chemical it is, (and there are a few, as I/we have seen, in the periodic table of elements) is determined entirely by the number/ratio of neutrons, electrons, and protons, nuclear particles! are they not?

As for "identical chemical behaviour" (isotopes) do they have the same size too? aside, as I am trying to point out, it is the ratio's of (timely) nuclear particulates that determines what chemical element it actually is.... that is nuclear physics, as yet undetermined/undiscovered, as I don't think you can show me any pictures of exactly what the spatial ordering of the nucleus actually is, can you? (it would be a world first!...if you can prove it)

Haelfix

Apr16-04, 09:10 PM

You don't need to know what the 'spatial' ordering of the nucleus is (whatever that means). All that chemistry cares about is the electron configuration, which is what they were saying.

Think of the nucleus as a black box.. You give me an electron configuration that you want to study, I give you the results of a chemistry experiment.

Of course, the nucleus carries charge, angular momentum and the like and will a priori help to set the stable configurations (via the electromagnetic interaction).. But thats not important for chemistry. We know what the periodic table looks like, we know what the stable conditions are... We don't care where the various atoms came from (heavy nuclear processes in stars actually)

Tom Mattson

Apr17-04, 02:18 AM

as I don't think you can show me any pictures of exactly what the spatial ordering of the nucleus actually is, can you? (it would be a world first!...if you can prove it)

Robin, I'm getting tired of this nonsense.

The "spatial ordering" of the nucleus is on the order of 10-15m. This is much smaller than the average orbit of any electron.

As chroot, Haelfix, and myself, as well as any textbook will tell you...

Nuclear reactions are different from chemical reactions, period.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr17-04, 06:45 AM

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr17-04, 02:24 PM

Please remember the transmutation of elements that is the radio active decay of U 235 to Pb 208, changing nucliec ordering/arrangment, and quantities, causes the (formerly) Uranium to transmutate into (lots of) other elements, until it reaches some stability at Pb 208....so changing the number of nucleotides (literally) changes the element, which results in changes in the Chemical properties of what you are observing.....OLD NEWS!

:cool: ??

Tom Mattson

Apr17-04, 03:33 PM

Tom, never said nuclear reaction and chemical reactions were the same thing, but all chemistry itself (the chemicals/the elements) comes from the nuclear arangement, as for it not being important, well, all bond angles are determined by the nucleous's arrangement cause that is what orders the valence shells....so if you don't like me saying this, well, you are NOT really following science, sciencitific thought, the pursuit of further understanding, etc.

Robin, what you have written here is simply wrong. Bond angles are not determined by nuclear structure at all. In any atomic model, the nucleus is treated as a structureless (!) particle with a mass and a charge. Given that these models work, and that you do not have a model that does take nuclear structure into account (or do you?), I'm sticking with what I know.

For Pete's sake, I took a whole course in quantum chemistry at the graduate level, wherein we used quantum theory to predict molecular structure. I certainly don't need a lecture on it from you.

Haelfix, you admit you don't even know what "spatial ordering of the nucleous" is/means, so how can you so blithely dismiss it? (not a demonstration of intelligence, nor curiousity, nor lots of the rest of what is needed for doing Science)

Most likely, he dismisses it because he knows that you just made that term up.

When an atom is positively charged is that not as a direct result of the NUCLEOUS'S PROTON? You know missing a valence shell electron hence a POSITIVE CHARGE is found, as a result of the proton! a NUCLEAR PARTICLE?? HUH??

We already knew that. What we're saying is that the nuclear structure does not come into play. The chemical properties of an atom are determined completely by the electronic structure.

PS write bigger tom, makes it easier to read.....little else...or as mentor you will simply delete me, not cause I am wrong, but because you don't like it! (anything New?)

That's a slanderous, baseless accusation. I have never deleted a post because I didn't like it. I always respond with a counterargument when I don't like something.

I won't delete your post, but you may consider yourself warned: Don't do this again.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr17-04, 05:35 PM

Uhmmm firstly please read post #8...secondly, just because it is treated as a mass, the nucleous, it is a composed mass, composed of neutrons and protons, and that is what decides the Valenece shells, ordering, and structure...to be proven

Given that the electronic structure is as a result of the nucleous, it becomes difficult to see it as not being an active part of the Atom.

And you have deleted me, before, sooo..........

As for "spatial ordering of the nucleous" well, what would you like me to call the arrangement of the neutrons and protons?

chroot

Apr17-04, 05:37 PM

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr17-04, 05:42 PM

Yes but what I was pointing out is the FACT of the number of neucleons dictating the atom itself, (which element! it becomes) and therefore it's (the atoms) chemistry.

PS Case you didn't notice, I had already admitted that I knew that 'scholastically' it wasn't viewed that way, but in reality it IS that way...

Sooooo......... :cool: :rolleyes:

chroot

Apr17-04, 05:44 PM

Right, and we've all agreed to that several times in this thread. If you know the number of protons in the nucleus, you know the atom's entire chemistry. That's the only thing about the nucleus that matters in chemistry.

- Warren

chroot

Apr17-04, 05:46 PM

PS Case you didn't notice, I had already admitted that I knew that 'scholastically' it wasn't viewed that way, but in reality it IS that way...
No, it really isn't that way in reality; that's why they're different academic subjects. The goings-on in the nucleus do not have anything to do with how the electrons behave around it.

- Warren

Monique

Apr17-04, 05:55 PM

So what would detecting the spin of protons, NMR, to identify molecules be? Physics? Chemistry? I'd say analytical chemistry. I guess we learn an awful lot of nuclear physics in Chemistry education.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr17-04, 08:14 PM

No, it really isn't that way in reality; that's why they're different academic subjects. The goings-on in the nucleus do not have anything to do with how the electrons behave around it.

- WarrenWOW! care to prove that one? (cause you will be first! in the World!)

Lets see, Carbon has 6 protons, and Oxygen has 8, but, according to you, that makes no difference to the valence shell electrons which must be acting on some sort of independant instructions from....who?? you????

Face simplicity, the valence shells are dictated by the Nuclear (nucleous's) Configuration, just that, that (nuclear configuration) is NOT "known current knowledge".....hence the difficulty you seem to be having with all of this...

And BTW chroot, would you please find me one single post, that I have made, in which I argued anything about "plain facts" that are established facts in the current knowledge of Science.......

chroot

Apr17-04, 08:17 PM

As I've said now at least five times:

The only characteristic of a nucleus that matters for chemistry is its charge.

- Warren

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr17-04, 08:20 PM

Oh yes, I forgot to add, IONS are different sizes (Spatial occupation) then non ionic atoms, and Isotopes are also different sizes then non isotopic atoms....so it does reveal something, and it does change the Atom itself....

And Yes, please tell us all just what is the definition of an atom is, inasmuch as, as far as I know of them, they are the multiplicity of arrangements of protons, neutrons, and electrons (fairly well exclusively 'particulately' speaking) that are the periodic table of elements. (sparing Hydrogen of course, no neutron)

chroot

Apr17-04, 08:36 PM

Ions definitely have different sizes. Isotopes, however, do not.

- Warren

Tom Mattson

Apr18-04, 03:43 AM

Uhmmm firstly please read post #8...secondly, just because it is treated as a mass, the nucleous, it is a composed mass, composed of neutrons and protons, and that is what decides the Valenece shells, ordering, and structure...to be proven

I don't know why you keep ignoring what I'm telling you, but the fact remains: the nucleus is treated as a structureless point mass of charge Ze and mass M, and the models work just fine.

Given that the electronic structure is as a result of the nucleous, it becomes difficult to see it as not being an active part of the Atom.

For the umpteenth time: No one is saying that the nucleus is not an "active part of the Atom". Of course, if the nucleus were not there, the atom would not exist.

What we are trying get through your thick skull is that the structure of the nucleus does not play a part in the electron configuration, and therefore does not play a part in the chemistry.

Bond angle and bond length can all be well accounted for by the VSEPR model (that's Valence Shell Electron Pair Replusion).

Feel free to look it up in your chemistry textbook, and please do note that it does not involve the structure of the nucleus.

Please

And you have deleted me, before, sooo..........

I am going to give you a choice. Either you can cite the thread and post of yours that I deleted, or you can publicly retract that statement.

Failing either of those, you may consider this a second and final warning.

As for "spatial ordering of the nucleous" well, what would you like me to call the arrangement of the neutrons and protons?

Since this is a concept that you have made up, I couldn't care less what you call it.

Tom Mattson

Apr18-04, 04:54 AM

Face simplicity,

Oh, I think that answering your last few posts most definitely qualifies as "facing simplicity".

the valence shells are dictated by the Nuclear (nucleous's) Configuration,

No.

The valence shells of the electron (as with all of the other shells of the electron) are dictated by the charge of the nucleus. Not it's configuration, not it's "spatial ordering", not its mood, not its horoscope. You are in over your head here, and would be well advised to listen to those who know better.

just that, that (nuclear configuration) is NOT "known current knowledge".....hence the difficulty you seem to be having with all of this...

No, the nuclear shells are known just fine. The only difficulty we are having is getting you to admit that you really do not know what you are talking about. Really Robin, is your ego so important to you that you will sacrifice all reason, evidence and common sense just to protect it?

And BTW chroot, would you please find me one single post, that I have made, in which I argued anything about "plain facts" that are established facts in the current knowledge of Science.......

This post will suffice to that end.

edit: fixed a quote bracket

Tom Mattson

Apr18-04, 05:27 AM

So what would detecting the spin of protons, NMR, to identify molecules be? Physics? Chemistry?

It really doesn't matter. The point is that we don't even need to know the nuclear configuration of a species to know its electron configuration. Any model of an atom or molecule that I have seen treats the nucleus as a structureless point mass of charge Ze. By using that, we get the electronic energy levels.

Of course, I only took one course in quantum chemistry, and so I am open to hearing of models that require knowledge of nuclear structure to account for electron configuration, and chemical properties of atomic and molecular species.

I guess we learn an awful lot of nuclear physics in Chemistry education.

No doubt about that. I also took an NMR course from the Chemistry department of my school. But like I said, it doesn't matter what subject you want to call it. The fact is that nuclear structure does not determine atomic structure. It was precisely that misconception that led one poster to think that the formation of H3O+ ions somehow had something to do with proton instability.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr18-04, 06:29 AM

(SNIP)What we are trying get through your thick skull is that the structure of the nucleus does not play a part in the electron configuration, and therefore does not play a part in the chemistry. (SNoP)When you resort to insult, you prove yourself......can you prove what you assert, herein, other then citing to me VSEPR because all that accounts for is the interactions of valence shell electrons not how the became ordered/arranged that way, (It is, incomplete!).....and I have been deleted by Mentors before, when they were wrong, as well, (chroot's done that one....Zero once too locked out a thread of mine, and I had had to put the right answer, in my signature, to get it out, sooo) perhaps it wasn't specifically you, but it has occured....and I am leery of the manner of some of the mentors specifically chroot, as this kind of thing has happened before HE was WRONG then, never apologized for nothing, and ythis is simply a repetition of the same, now including you.....

Is this really a place for 'theory development' (these forums, exchanges of idea's? dicussion? discourse?) or simply a place for the mentors to impose there ideas at the expence of all others?

As for the forewarning what rule/guideline of the forum am I violating? explaining some thing that isn't yet common knowledge or known scientific thought(s)?

Monique

Apr18-04, 06:35 AM

No, that is not true. The chemical properties of a substance are completely determined by its electronic structure. The nuclear properties of a substance are completely determined by its....well....nulcear structure.
I agree that the number of valence electrons most strongly determines the chemical properties of a molecule. The electrostatic interaction between the nucleus and the electrons though determines how many electrons can be held in place. Also, the effective nuclear charge determines the covalent or ionic radii of molecules, such as K ([Ar]3s1) has a radius of 2.31 and Ca ([Ar]3s2) has a radius of 1.97. (not to speak how ionisation and electron affinities are influenced by nuclear charge)

It comes down to that the nuclear charge definately is very important, but that is basically it. What protons and neutrons are doing inside of there together really isn't a chemists bussiness ;)

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr18-04, 06:42 AM

Tom Mattson

Apr18-04, 06:50 AM

When you resort to insult, you prove yourself......

I am not "resorting" to anything. I am telling you the truth.

can you prove what you assert, herein, other then citing to me VSEPR because all that accounts for is the interactions of valence shell electrons not how the became ordered/arranged that way, (It is, incomplete!).....

Once again: I do not need a lecture from you about this.

Quantum mechanics predicts how the electron configuration comes about, and VSPER predicts bond lengths and angles. You are the one who said that nuclear structure is necessary to account for these things, and I am pointing you to material that proves that that is false. Look into it. Or not, suit yourself.

and I have been deleted by Mentors before. when they were wrong, as well, (chroot's done that one....Zero once too locked out a thread of mine, and I had had to put the right answer, in my signature, to get it out, sooo) perhaps it wasn't specifically you, but it has occured....and I am leery of the manner of some of the mentors specifically chroot, as this kind of thing has happened before HE was WRONG then, never apologized for nothing, and ythis is simply a repetition of the same,

Whatever. Your accusation against me is not excused.

now including you.....

No, not including me. You are wrong here, and I am explaining why, without censorship. I have left all your posts alone, despite the fact that I think they are ludicrous.

Is this really a place for 'theory development' (these forums, exchanges of idea's? dicussion? discourse?) or simply a place for the mentors to impose there ideas at the expence of all others?

What difference would it make to you, if it were a place to develop a theory? You haven't even tried to do such a thing. All you keep doing is stating falsehoods and citing your chemistry book. Well Robin, if your chemistry book really says that stuff, then you need a new book.

It's quite simple, really. Either you have a model that connects nuclear structure to electronic structure, or you do not. If you do, then by all means present it. If not, then what are you blathering about?

As for the forewarning what rule/guideline of the forum am I violating? explaining some thing that isn't yet common knowledge or known scientific thought(s)?

Don't be so dense. You know precisely why I issued both warnings. It has nothing to do with any point you have made here, but rather with the accusation you made about me. I don't have to put up with that, and I won't.

Keep it up, and see what it gets you.

Tom Mattson

Apr18-04, 06:51 AM

It comes down to that the nuclear charge definately is very important, but that is basically it. What protons and neutrons are doing inside of there together really isn't a chemists bussiness ;)

And that's exactly what we have been saying all along.

Tom Mattson

Apr18-04, 06:53 AM

Can ANYONE show me a diagram of what the sphere packed arrangement of neutrons, and protons, in a Gold atoms nucleous looks like? (If not, then please, retract your assertions, cause there is NO PROOF!....yet...and it is important, obviously more then you seem to realize)

Can ANYONE show me that little invisible fairies are not responsible for determining the electron configuration of an atom? (If not, then don't even think about posting your statements to the contrary, cause there is NO PROOF!...yet...and it is important, obviously more then you seem to realize)

Monique

Apr18-04, 06:54 AM

.....and I have been deleted by Mentors before, when they were wrong
[..]
perhaps it wasn't specifically [Tom], but it has occured....
Let's just come to the conclusion that you've felt wronged in the past and that the comment towards Tom was perhaps inappropriate. I assure you that we are here for the good of the forum and not the other way around. Feedback is always welcome, but not in the form of accusations in an open thread since that won't resolve anything.

Can ANYONE show me a diagram of what the sphere packed arrangement of neutrons, and protons, in a Gold atoms nucleous looks like? (If not, then please, retract your assertions, cause there is NO PROOF!....yet...and it is important, obviously more then you seem to realize)
So exactly how would this arrangement be important in your view, and could you point us to some indirect evidence why you think this is important (can it be found in the periodic table?).

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr18-04, 07:46 AM

Mr. Mattson please got to this link, therei you will find out that Deuterium (as heavy water) boils at 101 degrees celsius, NOT the normal 100 degrees C that is the norm for Water, Hence when you add a neutron to the molecule you have CHANGED IT'S CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

I haven't read whats posted, since my last post, BUT I EXPECT an APOLOGY! from BOTH of you, Chroot, and YOU, cause BOTH of you are DEAD WRONG!!!

Here (http://www.cem.msu.edu/~cem181h/projects/98/deuterium/properties.htm)

Tom Mattson

Apr18-04, 07:54 AM

Mr. Mattson please got to this link, therei you will find out that Deuterium (as heavy water) boils at 101 degrees celsius, NOT the normal 100 degrees C that is the norm for Water,

Of course it does. I could have told you that. The boiling point of any substance is going to depend on the mass of the constituent molecules, because the very process of boiling involves molecules flying out of solution. This is not news to me, and it doesn't contradict anything I said.

Hence when you add a neutron to the molecule you have CHANGED IT'S CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

Errr...Robin, you need to take a closer look at that website. It clearly states at the top of the page that it is the PHYSICAL PROPERTIES and not the CHEMICAL PROPERTIES that are being discussed.

The difference between PHYSICAL PROPERTIES and CHEMICAL PROPERTIES should be addressed in that chemistry book of yours, somewhere near Chapter One. I suggest you review it, lest you find yourself looking any more foolish here.

I haven't read whats posted, since my last post, BUT I EXPECT an APOLOGY! from BOTH of you, Chroot, and YOU,

Robin, this really is quite laughable. You are grasping at straws to avoid the pain of admitting that you are wrong.

Give it up, man. You must have better things to do.

Monique

Apr18-04, 09:27 AM

Radioactivity (and changes in the nucleus) are also not considered chemistry. They are also nuclear physics. Chemistry is the study of how electrons behave around nuclei that are assumed stable.

- Warren
According to the dictionary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chemistry

Nuclear chemistry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Nuclear chemistry is a subfield of chemistry dealing with radioactivity, nuclear processes and nuclear properties. It may be divided into the following categories:

*Radiochemistry deals with the use of radioactivity to study ordinary chemical reactions
*The application of techniques from chemistry to study nuclear reactions such as fission and fusion — see also nuclear physics.
*Isotopic chemistry deals with the effect of nuclear mass on chemical reactions and the properties of compounds.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr18-04, 11:01 AM

Uhmm....isn't 'heat of formation' a chemical property? not a physical one....

And after the discussion of the science, follows your persistent insult of me....

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr18-04, 11:31 AM

Here's a link for you, University Oslo, Theoretical Activity in Solid State Chemistry and Material Science......."Heat of Formation" Table....... (http://folk.uio.no/ponniahv/activity/structural/dh.html)

Says them, the evidence speaks, not me......

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr18-04, 11:44 AM

Heres another one for you, Dictionary.com Heat of Formation (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Heat%20of%20formation)

Have a nice day..... I'm :cool: , your not....

Monique

Apr18-04, 12:22 PM

Ok, according to my chemistry textbook:

Chapter 1.1 Doing Chemistry:
Chemistry is the investigation of the composition, structure, and properties of matter and of the reaction by which one form of matter may be produced from or converted into other forms.

Chapter 1.4 Chemical and Physical properties:
Chemical property: the capacity of one type of matter to change into another type (or its inability to do so).
Physical property: a characteristic that does not involve a change in the composition of matter. Familiar examples of physical properties include mass, volume, length, color, hardness, the temperature at which a substance melts or boils, and electrical conductivity.

Boiling point would be a physical property, heat of formation a chemical property.

Tom Mattson

Apr18-04, 01:39 PM

Heres another one for you, Dictionary.com Heat of Formation (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Heat%20of%20formation)

Where is the connection between nuclear structure and heat of formation?

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr18-04, 01:54 PM

Sure, when you take carbon @ 6 and add 2 more you have successfully created oxygen @ 8....ergo you have changed literally the physical composure of an atom (physical properties) and come out with a completely different atom with completely different chemical properties.

All of the elemental chemicals (elements) are simply composures of the same nuclear elements (Electron/Proton/Neutron) thus, there differing behaviours/properties....nuclear physics is the bedrock begining of Chemistry, as the study of the properties of the elements of Nature, and their interactions......

Have a nice , well, day.... :cool:

Monique

Apr18-04, 02:15 PM

So oxygen has two more protons than carbon, but does that really change the chemical properties? The effective nuclear charge is changed, thus extra electrons are reqruited, which is the thing that changes the chemical properties. It also changes the radius of the molecule, which changes the way it interacts with other molecules. But it is not the proton itself that undergoes the interaction, it is mediated through the electrons.

Nuclear chemistry is in fact on the borderline between physics and chemistry (which every textbook will say), so I think there really is no resolution to this matter unless clear distinctions are made what you want to prove.

Tom Mattson

Apr18-04, 02:17 PM

Sure, when you take carbon @ 6 and add 2 more you have successfully created oxygen @ 8....ergo you have changed literally the physical composure of an atom (physical properties) and come out with a completely different atom with completely different chemical properties.

What you say here is in agreement with what I have been saying all along. I have told you more than once that, in order to explain chemical properties, we need only treat the nucleus as a structureless mass m with charge Ze. Change m or Z, and you will undoubtedly change the substance.

But this still does not establish a connection between chemistry and nuclear structure, or "spatial ordering of the nucleus" as you call it. The very fact that we can account for everything by treating the nuclear parameters m and Z without regard to structure is enough to conclude that no such connection exists.

pallidin

Apr18-04, 03:43 PM

Well, MRP does have a point with respect to classification of event phenomena of positive ions. A positive ion expresses attraction from one or more nuclear protons, technically classifying the event as nucleonic.

Nereid

Apr18-04, 04:02 PM

One of the radioactive decay processes is electron capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture), which involves an orbital electron being 'captured' by a proton in the nucleus and forming a neutron.

However, it's not 'chemistry', but 'nuclear physics', and has nothing to do with the stability of the proton :wink:

Robin, I've read this thread, and I must say that Tom, Monique and chroot have it right - in the field of study we call 'chemistry', all that matters (re the nucleus) is that it has x mass and y charge. Note that isotopes of the same element have different masses, and this does have some interesting implications (e.g. D2O has a different melting and boiling point from H2O, and you already noted; 3He behaves very differently when cooled to near 0K than 4He), however this has essentially no importance in chemistry (the only exception may be the chemistry of deuterated compounds, where H is replaced by D).

Wrt the original question - is the proton stable? - this is a question best addressed (IMHO) by nuclear physicists, not chemists. Why?

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr18-04, 04:50 PM

Well heat of formation deals with reacting elements together, H and O making H2O and if when you add a neutron to the H to make D then react it to make D2O and you take clear notation of the fact that the Heat of formation has changed you know that the addition of the Neutron has changed the chemical reactivity of the previously known as H, hence the bonding energy should be different, and if you know you have changed the chemical reactivity of something you have changed it's chemical properties, slightly.....

How the heck could you possibly get all of those positive charges together, (an Iron atom) in that small a space, unless the neutrons were cancelling out the repulsions of the protons, hence we would know that, a neutron, attached to a proton, inside a Hydrogen atom (now a deuteron{sp?}) should/would reduce the protons effect upon the electron, changes the binding energy...a chemical property...

Sorry.....but, is that clear enough?

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr18-04, 04:56 PM

Neried sorry, new thread title, as courtesy of Chroot....

Nuclear physics is equal to chemistry as that is where Chemistry starts, when the nucleons, protons/neutrons/electrons assemble to make all of the over 110 types of atoms/chemicals/elements that exist.

As it is believed that all that is required is the valence shell electron count, then if I charge a carbon atom, such that it achieves eight valence shell electrons, shouldn't I then have oxygen? cause.....Nope! I don't....to make oxygen, I'd need one helium nucleous.....

chroot

Apr18-04, 05:23 PM

How the heck could you possibly get all of those positive charges together, (an Iron atom) in that small a space, unless the neutrons were cancelling out the repulsions of the protons, hence we would know that, a neutron, attached to a proton, inside a Hydrogen atom (now a deuteron{sp?}) should/would reduce the protons effect upon the electron, changes the binding energy...a chemical property...
You seem to be missing entirely knowledge of the strong force, the force that holds nucleons together in a nucleus.

- Warren

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr18-04, 07:35 PM

You seem to be missing entirely knowledge of the strong force, the force that holds nucleons together in a nucleus.

- WarrenUhmmm not in the least little bit, and it needs overcome a massive amount of repulsion from the protons themselves....right? where is it coming from? which particle has that ability?

(the reason I ask you, is so that we both stay "on the same page")

chroot

Apr18-04, 07:37 PM

Particles made out of quarks feel the strong force. The nucleons do indeed need to overcome a large Coulomb repulsion; hence the moniker "strong."

- Warren

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr18-04, 07:45 PM

So you can press together fifty five protons? into a mass? compact mass? can you? (Not a chance! not without Neutrons in there!)

chroot

Apr18-04, 07:56 PM

You could, in fact, press 55 protons together. The resulting nucleus would not be stable, however, and would quickly decay.

- Warren

edit: I meant protons, but really it doesn't matter either way.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr19-04, 07:34 AM

Uhmmm I had said/asked P-R-O-T-O-N-S......not neutrons, "positive charges repelling' and how to overcome that, remember?

chroot

Apr19-04, 07:37 AM

And I answered, "the strong force," remember?

- Warren

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr19-04, 07:51 AM

(Yikes!) Yes! it is right there! and I can read! (God's Grace!) and you dodged the answer!........so, what else is new?

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr19-04, 07:52 AM

So Mr. Mattson, and Warren, in the link I had provided in which Mr. Mattson came back at me with it being the "Physical properties" of Deuterium, I have taken the liesure of copieing the sites words, and have emboldened (And Italicised the "Physical properties" colored the Chemical properties) the appropriate parts, so's as to ensure that this little 'melee' of your creation, gets proper solution, based upon the Most accurately Known Scienctific responce/answer....not anyones/someones ego......

The quote is taken from This Site (http://www.cem.msu.edu/~cem181h/projects/98/deuterium/properties.htm)
(Home page accreditation) <<This page was created for CEM 181H at Michigan State University in the Fall of 1998, taught by Dr. Marcos Dantus>>

When two deuterium ions bond with one oxygen ion, deuterium oxide, heavy water, is formed. It looks the same as and tastes similar to regular water, but some of it's characteristics are different. Heavy water is different from regular water in physical properties. Heavy water boils at 101.41 degrees Celsius and freezes at 3.79 degrees Celsius. The heat capacity, heat of fusion, heat of vaporization, and entropy of deuterium oxide are all higher than the values for water. Heavy water is also more viscous than water is. Deuterium oxide is not as good of a solvent as water is either. Deuterium will form stronger bonds than hydrogen will. As you too can read, the CHEMICAL PROPERTIES of Hydrogen/Water have changed because of the addition of a nucleon to the system, THE ISOTOPE that is deuterium HAS DIFFERENT CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Then HYDROGEN....

I would expect both of you, once again, to apologize to me, as both of you are Dead Wrong!....the Scientific evidence PROVES it....me? I'm just the guy you two like to insult, probably out of, what? fear?

BTW in reality I sincerly doubt that either of you can admit to the error, nor do I really have an expectation of any kind of apology from either of you, don't think that there is enough space, in you, to accomodate humilty.

Thanks for your time....hope you have learned something!

chroot

Apr19-04, 07:54 AM

(Yikes!) Yes! it is right there! and I can read! (God's Grace!) and you dodged the answer!........so, what else is new?
What question did I dodge?

- Warren

chroot

Apr19-04, 08:02 AM

And Robin, the one line "Deuterium will form stronger bonds than hydrogen will" is definitely news to me. If indeed that's true, then you've shown us one example of a nuclear property directly affecting a chemical property. Well done! You've taught me something.

I will agree that there are a handful of special situations in which the nucleus is involved in an atom's chemistry (Nereid, for example, explained at least one, and you've apparently found a reference for another). For the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of chemical interactions, however, the details of the nucleus are entirely unimportant to the atom's chemistry. That's the point Tom and I were trying to make to you. Just because the nucleus affects the chemistry in a handful of special circumstances doesn't mean you should generalize that it's always important -- that's what we objected to in the first place.

- Warren

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr19-04, 08:12 AM

To your last post, uhmmm so far, still stuff to come you know, it is not all solved yet, and it you were to be the Author of ToE would you not need to know how the valence shells get structured in the first place..........I need/needed to know that...

The question was "can you pack 55 protons into a small compact mass" which I already said, couldn't be done, not without neutrons, as the repulsive forces (of the Protons) would blow it apart, long before you got even close to 55.....

As for your last line, in you post above me, would you like me to blow that crap outa the water too, "you objected to it"? HUH?? what? attacked! and outrightly denied it! those are the right words...........and I did NOT generalize it, I simply stated that the Nuclear arangement Made a difference to the particles chemical properties, cause that is what makes it the element it is! Chemical element! you know like the ones that they study in Astrophysics the study of the Fussion of Chemical elements, in Nuclear reactions, in Stellar bodies.......It's all connected, that is matter!

chroot

Apr19-04, 08:20 AM

Er uh... I have no idea what point you were trying to make in that last post. The total charge and mass of the nucleus is important for chemistry, as has been said; rarely are any other details important. You seem to have just discovered the single contrary example a few minutes ago, so it would be intellectually dishonest of you to say you were right all along.

Besides, Tom has pointed out several times that the mass of the nucleus is certainly important to chemistry, and deuterium differs from protium notably in mass. I don't believe the neutron itself makes any difference other than contributing mass. So, if you really want to continue to argue technicalities, I could argue that your argument has already been said in this thread. You did teach me something about deuterium, however, so I thought I would be nice and thank you for it. You seem to still be upset. Oh, well.

And I answered your 55 proton question quite adequately. I'm not sure what your problem is.

- Warren

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr19-04, 08:31 AM

(SNIP) I don't believe the neutron itself makes any difference other than contributing mass. (SNoP)

WOW, seems you would want to start this all over agian, on neutrons this time....

BTW the thread, as you now seem willing to admit, did, and does, belong in Physics, as we are not developing anything new in theory, here. (other then the theroy of your characters)

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr19-04, 08:33 AM

(SNIP)And I answered your 55 proton question quite adequately. I'm not sure what your problem is. (SNIP)

WHERE????????????

chroot

Apr19-04, 08:34 AM

Okay, can you show me some evidence that the neutron affects deuterium's chemical bonds in any way except by virtue of its added mass?

And no, virtually all of this thread has been your proselytizing your many misunderstandings of atomic phenomena. It clearly belongs here, in TD.

- Warren

chroot

Apr19-04, 08:36 AM

WHERE????????????
I said, many times, that if you were to squash 55 protons together closely enough, they would bind together due to the strong force. The resulting nucleus would very quickly decay, however.

- Warren

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr19-04, 08:38 AM

You could, in fact, press 55 Originally written a neutrons! protons Now changed edited to protons! together. The resulting nucleus would not be stable, however, and would quickly decay.

- Warren

edit: I meant protons, but really it doesn't matter either way.Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha do I love that reason for the edit line it "doesn't matter either way" WOW! just WOW!

:tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

You really are better viewed/read as a comedian when you rant (crap) like that!!!!!!

chroot

Apr19-04, 08:39 AM

How is that comedic? Both neutrons and protons feel the strong force equally.

- Warren

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr19-04, 08:41 AM

I said, many times, that if you were to squash 55 protons together closely enough, they would bind together due to the strong force. The resulting nucleus would very quickly decay, however.

- WarrenPlease go find someone who knows something about Physics! and ask them! what kind of energy it would require to compact 55 PROTONS into a Small Compact mass, like an atoms nucleous.....YIKES!!!

(buddy, you are really lost!)

chroot

Apr19-04, 08:42 AM

It'd take a lot of energy. We couldn't do it with today's technology, I don't think. That doesn't mean it can't be done in principle.

I get the distinct feeling you have no idea what I'm talking about when I say 'the strong force.' Am I right?

- Warren

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr19-04, 08:44 AM

NO!

When protons interact in the SUN, Fussion, proton-proton chains, you know the rest, why are the not bound together by the Strong force??????

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr19-04, 08:45 AM

chroot

Apr19-04, 08:46 AM

All nuclei are bound together by the strong force, including those in the sun. Do you disagree?

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/strong.html

- Warren

chroot

Apr19-04, 08:47 AM

Clearly you have no idea of what I am talking about because when you add neutrons, well, you can compact 55 protons together, really easily, into a very small compact mass, nature does it all the time!!!!!
No, it would still take virtually the same energy to overcome the protons' coulomb repulsion. The neutrons don't change that; they just make the resulting nucleus stable.

- Warren

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr19-04, 08:53 AM

YIKES! how can it stabllize the resulting atom, "resting nucleus", if they don't do anything?

chroot

Apr19-04, 08:55 AM

Like I said, you have no idea how the strong force operates. The neutron and proton are just the isospin-up and isospin-down states of the nucleon. The strong force operates on all nucleons the same way.

- Warren

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr19-04, 08:57 AM

Bye! (go learn something, while you have the time, cause I don't want to bother wasting my time, responding to your, well, ego.....)

jdavel

Apr19-04, 12:17 PM

Tom Mattson

Apr19-04, 01:42 PM

The quote is taken from This Site (http://www.cem.msu.edu/~cem181h/projects/98/deuterium/properties.htm)
(Home page accreditation) <<This page was created for CEM 181H at Michigan State University in the Fall of 1998, taught by Dr. Marcos Dantus>>
As you too can read, the CHEMICAL PROPERTIES of Hydrogen/Water have changed because of the addition of a nucleon to the system, THE ISOTOPE that is deuterium HAS DIFFERENT CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Then HYDROGEN....

That's interesting. But what else do you have? What data does Dr. Dantus have? The "increased bond strength" remark was in the context of D2O not being as good a solvent as H2O. If the "bond strength" comment refers to intermolecular forces, then this could possibly be explained in terms of the mass and charge of the nuclei alone, which is what I have been saying all along.

I would expect both of you, once again, to apologize to me, as both of you are Dead Wrong!....the Scientific evidence PROVES it....me? I'm just the guy you two like to insult, probably out of, what? fear?

I don't apologize for contradicting people. I would apologize for something more personal like, say, accusing someone of abusing their power of censorship as PF Mentor, when in fact no such abuse ever occured.

I don't know what you think you have proven, but you most definitely have not proven that the details of nuclear structure has anything to do with this. Until you or anyone else shows me something that anything other than m and Z determine the behavior of an atom, I'm sticking with what I have been repeating all this time.

BTW in reality I sincerly doubt that either of you can admit to the error, nor do I really have an expectation of any kind of apology from either of you, don't think that there is enough space, in you, to accomodate humilty.

Wow. You need to look in a mirror, Robin, because you have just described yourself perfectly.

In reality, I have admitted to error whenever the need arises. In fact, just so you don't go thinking that my ego is more important to me than learning, I'll point out and retract a mistake I made in this very thread:

Originally posted by me
No, that is not true. The chemical properties of a substance are completely determined by its electronic structure. The nuclear properties of a substance are completely determined by its....well....nulcear structure.

If you want proof of the separation between nuclear physics and chemistry, you have only to consider that different isotopes of the same atomic species have the same chemical properties but not the same nuclear properties, and that different ions of the same atomic species have the same nuclear properties but not the same chemical properties.

I neglected to include the nuclear mass in this discussion. That is, I was thinking that only Z mattered, and I should have recalled that m is important, too. I corrected this mistake in subsequent posts, but I did so without announcing that I had modified my position.

But I stick by my claim that nuclear structure does not play a role in chemistry. Monique (a chemist) has agreed with that.

Tom Mattson

Apr19-04, 01:45 PM

chroot: You could, in fact, press 55 Originally written a neutrons! protons Now changed edited to protons! together. The resulting nucleus would not be stable, however, and would quickly decay.

edit: I meant protons, but really it doesn't matter either way.

Robin: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha do I love that reason for the edit line it "doesn't matter either way" WOW! just WOW!

He's exaclty right. The strong force is charge-independent. As he explained later, from the point of view of strong interactions (and only from that point of view), the proton and neutron can be regarded as two different states of the same particle, and the strong interaction does not differentiate between them.

Tom Mattson

Apr19-04, 01:46 PM

This thread should be deleted (not locked, deleted) as should any thread started by MRP as soon as his attitude surfaces. He has nothing to contribute, and he doesn't ask questions to learn. He's only here to waste people's time with his idiotic posts.

I agree that this thread is idiotic, but I'm not going to delete it.

I'll give Robin one last chance to provide some evidence that nuclear structure has any role in chemistry. If he comes back with the same type of ranting as before, I'll shut this circus down.

krab

Apr19-04, 03:19 PM

Bye! (go learn something, while you have the time, cause I don't want to bother wasting my time, responding to your, well, ego.....)

I was browsing this thread, learning how it is very hard to teach anyone anything. My main conclusion was that MRP knows nothing of nuclear physics and his ego too big to learn. His theory that additional neutrons change the way the electrons see the nucleus may have been a useful hypothesis 100 years ago, but the whole field of nuclear physics has developed since then. Then I came upon the quote above and it cracked me up.

pallidin

Apr21-04, 04:36 PM

OK, I am REALLY confused here.
I am under the impression that a postive ion is such that the nuclear protons exhibit the "net" positive force for that atom.
As such, and if true, than positive atoms interacting with other atoms to form a "molecule" with respect to it's "positive" electrical nature directly implies a "chemistry" involving the nucleus.
Perhaps too simplistic but I am confused.

pallidin

Apr21-04, 04:52 PM

Further thoughts: Everything involving chemistry ultimately involves the nucleus, as the bound electron(s) responsible for molecular events are bound only due to the nucleus protons.
Curiously enough, a negative ion creates an event whereby it's expression in chemistry is due to the extra electron(s) nearly regardless of circumstance. A positive ion must behave substantially different, and is circumstantially dependent.
AAaaggg... where's my beer when I need it?

chroot

Apr21-04, 05:22 PM

pallidin,

I would attempt to answer your questions, but I have no idea what you're asking.

- Warren

pallidin

Apr22-04, 03:44 PM

pallidin,

I would attempt to answer your questions, but I have no idea what you're asking.

- Warren

Thanks for you willingness to assist.
chroot, here are my questions preceeded by statments of assumption:

1) A positive ion is postive due to the removal of one or more electrons from an otherwise electrically neutral atom. The net "positive" electrical field emminates from the nuclear protons, not from the shell(s) that now lack electrons.
Question: Is that correct?

2) A negative ion has an excess amount of electrons, the "excess amount" specific to the atom in question. The net "negative" electrical field emminates from the excess electrons.
Question: Is that correct?

3) In conventional chemistry, molecular arrangement is due to the interaction and sharing of valence electrons between two or more individual atoms.
Question: Is that correct?

4) Question: Can two separate negative ions form a molecule(taking note of the repulsive tendancy) without prior de-ionization?

5) Can two separate positive atoms form a molecule (also taking note of the repulsive tendency)?

Thank you for your time.