- #1
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,256
- 0
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...
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)chroot said:The so-incalled inverse beta decay, MRP, is not an example of chemisty. It's nuclear physics.
- Warren
Mr. Robin Parsons said: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...
Mr. Robin Parsons said: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...
Mr. Robin Parsons said: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?
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"chroot said: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
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?Tom Mattson said: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 said: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)
Mr. Robin Parsons said: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?)
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.Mr. Robin Parsons said: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...
WOW! care to prove that one? (cause you will be first! in the World!)chroot said: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
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
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?
Mr. Robin Parsons said: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...
Monique said:So what would detecting the spin of protons, NMR, to identify molecules be? Physics? Chemistry?
I guess we learn an awful lot of nuclear physics in Chemistry education.
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...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)
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)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.
Mr. Robin Parsons said: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 said: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 ;)