Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nuclear physics = chemistry?

  1. Apr 15, 2004 #1
    Actually there is an example of a form of the instability of a proton in chemistry, wherein a proton changes into a neutron by capturing an electron.....granted it isn't really instability, but it is change....
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 15, 2004 #2

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The so-incalled inverse beta decay, MRP, is not an example of chemisty. It's nuclear physics.

    - Warren
     
  4. Apr 16, 2004 #3
    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.......
     
  5. Apr 16, 2004 #4

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Chemistry, rather by definition, does not involve effects inside the nucleus.

    - Warren
     
  6. Apr 16, 2004 #5
    Uhmm Yes scholastically speaking, you are right, but not in reality, not in atoms, charges/ions, isotopes, are derived from the interactivity of the atom with all of it's constituent components, inside to outside and roundaboutbackagain....sooo...(lets not, please)
     
  7. Apr 16, 2004 #6
    This is not instability. Because then you must consider the electron unstable... that I don't think is even worthy of debate.
    Cheers,
    Norm
     
  8. Apr 16, 2004 #7

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  9. Apr 16, 2004 #8
    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?
     
  10. Apr 16, 2004 #9

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  11. Apr 16, 2004 #10

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  12. Apr 16, 2004 #11
    Uhmmm 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)
     
  13. Apr 16, 2004 #12
    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)
     
  14. Apr 16, 2004 #13

    Haelfix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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)
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2004
  15. Apr 17, 2004 #14

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    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.
     
  16. Apr 17, 2004 #15
    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.

    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)

    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??

    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?)
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2004
  17. Apr 17, 2004 #16
    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: ??
     
  18. Apr 17, 2004 #17

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.

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

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2004
  19. Apr 17, 2004 #18
    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?
     
  20. Apr 17, 2004 #19

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  21. Apr 17, 2004 #20
    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:
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Nuclear physics = chemistry?
Loading...