Is There a Connection Between Nuclear Physics and Chemistry?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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[/color]) 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 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.[/color]

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...[/color]

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 sincerely 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 accommodate humilty.

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

 

[chroot]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

WHERE??

 

[chroot]

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]

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]

You could, in fact, press 55 Originally written a neutrons![/color] protons Now changed edited to protons![/color] 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.[/color]

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!



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

 

[chroot]

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

- Warren

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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

Please 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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[chroot]

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]

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]

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

 

[chroot]

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]

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]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

The quote is taken from 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...[/color]

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 sincerely 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 accommodate 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.

 

[quantumdude]

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 exactly 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.

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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]

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]

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]

pallidin,

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

- Warren

 

[pallidin]

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 statements 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.

 

[chroot]

1) and 2) When you're far enough away, you can't tell that the atom has internal structure. When you're enough away, it appears the entire atom is charged. This is how all dipole fields behave.

3) Generally, yes.

4 and 5) I'm not sure, but I'm not a chemist. There may be a way for it to happen as a polyatomic ion. There also may some some kinds of bonds that can overpower the electrostatic repulsion, particularly in large atoms with lots of shells for shielding to occur.

- Warren