Nuclear physics = chemistry?

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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
34
Ions definitely have different sizes. Isotopes, however, do not.

- Warren
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Mr. Robin Parsons said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Mr. Robin Parsons said:
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Monique said:
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.
 
Tom Mattson said:
(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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
Tom Mattson said:
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 ;)
 
Last edited:
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)
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Mr. Robin Parsons said:
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Monique said:
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Mr. Robin Parsons said:
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
Mr. Robin Parsons said:
.....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. 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!!!

http://www.cem.msu.edu/~cem181h/projects/98/deuterium/properties.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Mr. Robin Parsons said:
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
chroot said:
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.
 
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....
 

Monique

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Mr. Robin Parsons said:
Heres another one for you, Dictionary.com Heat of Formation
Where is the connection between nuclear structure and heat of formation?
 
Last edited:
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Mr. Robin Parsons said:
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.
 
2,193
2
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.
 
Last edited:

Nereid

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
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 :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?
 

Related Threads for: Nuclear physics = chemistry?

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
17K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
6K
Top