Is There a Connection Between Nuclear Physics and Chemistry?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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...

 

[chroot]

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

- Warren

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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

- Warren

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...

 

[chroot]

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

- Warren

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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)

 

[Norman]

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...

This is not instability. Because then you must consider the electron unstable... that I don't think is even worthy of debate.
Cheers,
Norm

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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...

(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]

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

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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

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)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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]

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 that's 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)

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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?)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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!

??

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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]

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

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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...

 

[chroot]

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]

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]

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]

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

WOW! 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]

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]

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]

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

- Warren

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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

 

[quantumdude]

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]

(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]

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.