Quantum mechanics -- explanation of exothermic reactions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding how bond formation in exothermic reactions releases heat, specifically at the microscopic level. The original poster seeks a conceptual explanation without mathematical details, focusing on the latent heat released during processes like water freezing. Responses highlight the challenge of conveying these concepts without resorting to mathematical terminology, suggesting that intuitive explanations may not suffice. The conversation reflects a tension between the desire for a qualitative understanding and the inherent complexity of quantum mechanics. Ultimately, the difficulty in providing a purely verbal explanation of energy release during bond formation is emphasized.
Andrew1955
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Hi, I am wondering about latent heat release when water freezes but it seems best to start with a regular exothermic reaction. How does bond formation create heat? What is actually happening at the microscopic level so that these combining particles are capable of causing adjacent molecules to become hotter? I am not wanting a maths answer but rather a thought experiment approach to the answer that considers what is happening microscopically. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Andrew1955 said:
Hi, I am wondering about latent heat release when water freezes but it seems best to start with a regular exothermic reaction. How does bond formation create heat? What is actually happening at the microscopic level so that these combining particles are capable of causing adjacent molecules to become hotter? I am not wanting a maths answer but rather a thought experiment approach to the answer that considers what is happening microscopically. Thanks
"I don't want math." Overlap/exchange integrals.
 
Bystander said:
"I don't want math." Overlap/exchange integrals.

Sorry I have no idea what that comment is telling me.
 
Andrew1955 said:
Sorry I have no idea what that comment is telling me.
You have stated that you do not want any math; if you Google "overlap/exchange integral(s)"-"math", you'll get nothing but math. Do not request that we appeal to your intuition(s), or that we appease your intuition(s), because it simply will not happen on PF.
 
Bystander said:
You have stated that you do not want any math; if you Google "overlap/exchange integral(s)"-"math", you'll get nothing but math. Do not request that we appeal to your intuition(s), or that we appease your intuition(s), because it simply will not happen on PF.

Are you telling me it is impossible to explain in words why energy is released when a chemical bond is formed? I thought maths was a shorthand way of describing something that could in principle be described in words?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top