Properties of Matter: How Do We Know?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Avichal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matter Properties
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the properties of elements and compounds, questioning how we determine the completeness of known properties and whether all properties can be theoretically calculated if the laws of physics are fully understood. It explores concepts related to emergent properties, the relationship between constituents and their aggregations, and the implications of quantum mechanics on predictability.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the completeness of known properties is uncertain and that new properties may exist beyond current understanding.
  • Others argue that while we can theoretically calculate properties based on fundamental laws, practical limitations exist due to complexity.
  • A participant mentions "parachor" as an example of a property that illustrates the variability in defining properties based on user interests.
  • There is a discussion on emergent properties, with some suggesting that properties of aggregations differ significantly from those of individual atoms.
  • Some participants assert that if we know the laws of physics perfectly, we could calculate all properties, while others challenge this view, citing limitations in computational capabilities and the nature of quantum mechanics.
  • One participant questions whether calculating probabilities equates to defining properties, suggesting that a probabilistic description may not capture all aspects of a system.
  • There is a mention of the distinction between chemistry and computational physics, with some arguing that not all phenomena can be computed or understood fully.
  • A later reply raises the question of whether the discussion has been addressed in scientific literature or if it remains a collection of individual theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the completeness of known properties and the feasibility of calculating all properties theoretically. There is no consensus on whether all properties can be determined or if computational limits exist, indicating ongoing disagreement and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to definitions of properties, the complexity of aggregations, and the implications of quantum mechanics on predictability. There are unresolved questions about the relationship between theoretical calculations and empirical measurements.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying chemistry, physics, or philosophy of science, particularly in relation to the nature of properties, emergent phenomena, and the limits of theoretical calculations in science.

Avichal
Messages
294
Reaction score
0
This maybe a general science question but I'll put it here.

When we say that an element has so-and-so properties, how do we know those are the only properties it has.
For example:- We say an element has properties like electron affinity, electro-negativity etc. How do we know these are the only properties. There could be more, right?

Well, I have an answer and a question to this. Answer is that, we don't know. Only by experimenting and looking at new phenomena we come to know of new properties.
My question is, let's say if we know all the laws of physics perfectly. Since we know an element is made of electrons, protons and neutrons, could we then at least theoretically calculate all the properties?

I don't know why but this question is killing me. I can't sleep!
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Avichal said:
There could be more, right?
And we know there are more. So what? You can even make up your own properties if you like, and measure them. That does not mean everything that can be defined would be useful.
Avichal said:
My question is, let's say if we know all the laws of physics perfectly. Since we know an element is made of electrons, protons and neutrons, could we then at least theoretically calculate all the properties?
Theoretically, sure.

Actually, the first assumption is a very good approximation for everyday objects. Particle physics can describe electrons, protons, neutrons and their interactions with incredible precision. Using those laws in systems with several hundred components (large nuclei with many electrons) is still challenging, but that is just a complexity problem, not a fundamental one.
 
Avichal said:
the only properties it has.
You might Google "parachor." An absolute global enumeration of "properties" is more a matter of enumerating user's interests/applications than of enumerating all possibilities for what can be known about an element, or compound. "Parachor" is an example.
 
Avichal said:
When we say that an element has so-and-so properties, how do we know those are the only properties it has.
For example:- We say an element has properties like electron affinity, electro-negativity etc. How do we know these are the only properties. There could be more, right?

Note that it depends on where you draw the line.

The set of properties of an individual atom of hydrogen is a very different set than the properties of a mole of hydrogen atoms. Some properties are emergent, and only apply to aggregations.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Some properties are emergent, and only apply to aggregations.

That's what I wanted to ask. Can we theoretically calculate all the properties of an aggregation if we know the properties of its constituents?

As an example:- I was studying about melting point of a substance. Experiments showed that it depends on properties like molecular weight and packing of the molecule. Later by new experiments it was found that melting point also depends on a new property called hydrogen bonding.
So, if we know the laws of physics perfectly, my question is that can we calculate all such properties and not depend on experiments to find out new ones?

Bystander said:
You might Google "parachor." An absolute global enumeration of "properties" is more a matter of enumerating user's interests/applications than of enumerating all possibilities for what can be known about an element, or compound. "Parachor" is an example.
Hmm, I think we will need to know what do we exactly mean by "properties", if we want to find all possible properties, right?
 
Avichal said:
need to know what do we exactly mean by "properties"
Yes.
 
Avichal said:
That's what I wanted to ask. Can we theoretically calculate all the properties of an aggregation if we know the properties of its constituents?
No.
Imagine taking this list of atoms:
http://web2.airmail.net/uthman/elements_of_body.html
and extrapolating Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor..
 
DaveC426913 said:
No.
I think the questions asks about chemical properties, but still:

Why not? A human body and its environment is way beyond the computing capabilities of today's or even tomorrow's computers, but where do you see the fundamental problem that would make such a computation completely impossible if we know the initial state with sufficient precision?

Avichal said:
So, if we know the laws of physics perfectly, my question is that can we calculate all such properties and not depend on experiments to find out new ones?
Yes. And we know the laws of physics well enough for all of chemistry. It is "just" a matter of modelling and computing power.
 
mfb said:
I think the questions asks about chemical properties, but still:
Well what is biology - even human biology - but vastly complex chemistry?

mfb said:
Why not? A human body and its environment is way beyond the computing capabilities of today's or even tomorrow's computers, but where do you see the fundamental problem that would make such a computation completely impossible if we know the initial state with sufficient precision?
Sure, in a deterministic Newtonian universe. Not in a quantum universe.
 
  • #10
DaveC426913 said:
Well what is biology - even human biology - but vastly complex chemistry?
Yes, but I think we can agree that "writing music" is not a relevant chemical property of atoms or molecules.
Sure, in a deterministic Newtonian universe. Not in a quantum universe.
The laws of quantum mechanics are deterministic.
 
  • #11
mfb said:
Yes, but I think we can agree that "writing music" is not a relevant chemical property of atoms or molecules.
We do not agree. The OP posits:
Can we theoretically calculate all the properties of an aggregation if we know the properties of its constituents?

mfb said:
The laws of quantum mechanics are deterministic.
Not sure if we're mincing words, or if I've been reading the wrong books.

Whether or not the laws of QM are deterministic, a quantum universe is not. We cannot predict certain things beyond a certain degree.
 
  • #12
DaveC426913 said:
Whether or not the laws of QM are deterministic, a quantum universe is not.
This depends on the interpretation.
It does not matter for the answer - even if you follow nondeterministic interpretations, a hypothetical supercomputer can calculate all probabilities.
 
  • #13
My answer is Science has neither as aim nor method calculating every damn thing.

Nor even explaining every damn thing.

So that relieves it of having to answer "it hasn't explained the flying saucer that several reliable witnesses (airplane pilots etc.) reported seeing in 1948." And similar things creationists will tell you it hasn't explained.

It's not unviersally understood that chemistry for example is not computational physics, though its overlap can be useful, but it's still a science.

When something can be computed, I doubt you can always say it's understood.

About your question I think you should ask yourself - why does it matter.

Without a quantum supercomputer I predict that Evo will soon close this thread.
 
  • #14
mfb said:
This depends on the interpretation.
It does not matter for the answer - even if you follow nondeterministic interpretations, a hypothetical supercomputer can calculate all probabilities.
But what does 'all probabilities' get you? Is that the same as defining properties?
 
  • #15
DaveC426913 said:
But what does 'all probabilities' get you? Is that the same as defining properties?
Sure. It is the best possible description of the system. What else could you describe?
Actually, it is much better than a measurement, because a measurement will never give you all possible results or their probabilities.

I don't think this side-discussion is very useful.
 
  • #17
Avichal said:
However, I want to ask if the above discussion is present or studied anywhere in scientific literature or are we just presenting our individual theories?
Do you mean if there is formal research into - and study of - how we know whether an element has certain properties and only those properties?
I don't think so.

Although, if you're interested in quantum mechanics and spooky action at a distance, Bell's "Hidden Variables" theorem comes close. He refutes the notion that entangled particles at a distance have some sort of hidden property that tells them about each other. This theorem shows that they cannot.
 

Similar threads

Astatine's Interactions with Ion Exchange and Chromatography Resins
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
How Do Individual Atoms Determine if an Element is Solid, Liquid, or Gaseous?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Transition Metal Periodic Trend -- Stackexchange's answer confuses me
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
What does "limit of zero pressure" mean for ideal gas temperature?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Undergrad Can we accurately predict the properties of gold?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Graduate Probing Dark Matter Physics: What Properties Can We Derive?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
How did 19th century scientists measure atomic and molecular weight?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
High School What do we mean by the charge on a body is denoted by "q"?
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
How to Calculate Ideal Gas State Properties Using Molecular Dynamics?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Why do we use electrode potential to predict other reactions
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K