Is There a Connection Between Nuclear Physics and Chemistry?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP)[/color]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)[/color]

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]

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 definitely 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]

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)

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

It comes down to that the nuclear charge definitely 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.

 

[quantumdude]

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]

...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]

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 what's posted, since my last post, BUT I EXPECT an APOLOGY! from BOTH of you, Chroot, and YOU, cause BOTH of you are DEAD WRONG![/size]

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

 

[quantumdude]

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 what's 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]

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]

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]

http://folk.uio.no/ponniahv/activity/structural/dh.html

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

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Heres another one for you, Dictionary.com Heat of Formation

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

 

[Monique]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

Heres another one for you, Dictionary.com Heat of Formation

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

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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 beginning of Chemistry, as the study of the properties of the elements of Nature, and their interactions...

Have a nice , well, day...

 

[Monique]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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[/color] 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]

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]

One of the radioactive decay processes is 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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

- Warren

Uhmmm 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]

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]

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

 

[chroot]

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]

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

 

[chroot]

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

- Warren

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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