Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #510247 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-29 12:55 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-08-02 16:44 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 153 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 12:55 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-30 15:01 +0000
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 14:23 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Enomis Skating <anomis.edenomis@libero.it> - 2015-08-02 23:38 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 06:53 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 16:06 +0200
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:13 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 14:18 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 16:58 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 16:10 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 07:39 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 08:33 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 10:41 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 10:38 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 13:36 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 13:11 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 13:24 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 15:35 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 15:50 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 20:05 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 20:04 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 20:22 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 06:52 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 09:32 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:37 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:21 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 13:35 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 13:29 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 17:13 -0500
curvature of Universe manifest; time is not a dimesnion per se noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:06 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Enomis Skating <anomis.edenomis@libero.it> - 2015-08-05 22:59 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 06:32 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 09:36 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 07:51 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 07:51 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 10:22 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 08:34 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:17 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 14:35 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 14:51 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 17:22 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 16:47 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 07:38 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 06:27 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 08:49 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 10:11 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 12:47 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 14:40 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 18:56 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 04:59 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 11:23 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 15:33 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 14:23 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 12:36 -0700
"de- noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 15:45 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 09:00 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 10:17 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 09:54 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:55 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 11:38 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:49 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 18:27 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:41 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 05:50 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 09:16 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:41 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 13:38 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 10:52 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-08-11 14:49 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 14:51 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 05:30 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 07:56 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 16:28 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 18:21 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:15 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 08:55 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 15:30 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 15:28 -0500
from there noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 13:21 -0700
to noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 10:16 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 17:20 -0500
mister Franz (sp.? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:10 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 07:42 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 09:34 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Enomis Skating <anomis.edenomis@libero.it> - 2015-08-06 07:56 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 08:16 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 10:39 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 09:30 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 12:15 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 06:26 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 05:49 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-10 19:20 +0000
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 12:50 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 15:53 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 14:46 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 17:27 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 15:55 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-10 23:15 +0000
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 18:40 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 22:07 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:53 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:12 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 09:00 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:22 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 09:33 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:44 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 10:22 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 09:53 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 13:05 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 11:19 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 13:25 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 11:42 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 13:54 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 12:29 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 15:05 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 13:24 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 15:32 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 13:55 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 17:15 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 15:40 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:55 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:31 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 10:41 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 09:10 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 11:27 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 11:04 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-12 18:26 +0000
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 13:28 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 12:49 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:35 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 14:58 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 16:18 -0700
:=4 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 16:58 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:57 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 05:32 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-11 15:13 +0000
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:47 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-11 15:04 +0000
ratio, aspect noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 12:23 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 20:35 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 19:00 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 05:25 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-01 21:02 +0000
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 06:50 -0400
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 14:05 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Enomis Skating <anomis.edenomis@libero.it> - 2015-08-02 02:28 -0700
zene o'Ben noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 14:14 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 17:01 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-01 22:48 +0000
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Enomis Skating <anomis.edenomis@libero.it> - 2015-08-02 02:21 -0700
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 16:57 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 16:59 -0500
Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 16:44 -0500
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 12:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Benzene ring- nothing has to magically "delocalize" |
| Message-ID | <89c4ad48-e7ee-4817-81c4-082d907b79e8@googlegroups.com> |
Word salad? Comprehension issues? The problem is how each member shares one surplus electron. The solution is to be in a ring and everyone lend one way and borrow from the other way. NOT delocalize NOT magic You like magic, Michael?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 15:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mpde7i$kt$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #510247 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Michael said >"Or, even better, contribute an electron to a common bond with 5 other >atoms. " >Well, I never learned about "common >bonds". I learned that it takes 2 >electrons to fill an orbital. That's generally true, but what happens is more complicated than that simplification. The following description is probably wasted on you, but perhaps someone else reading this will appreciate it. Electrons in orbitals are mostly standing waves. The waves have a wave function in 3d space, which has a value at every point in space. The wave function value can be + or - (this is not electric charge). When two atoms have orbital wave functions that overlap, they interact. If both of them are + (or both -) they reinforce each other, form a lower energy state and form a bond. If 1 is + and the other -, they will repel each other, it's an "antibond". If there are two electrons in an orbital they will have the same wave function but of opposite sign. They will cancel so the electrons don't participate in bonds with other atoms. In a p orbital the wave function looks like a 3d figure 8. One lobe of the 8 is +, the other -. In benzene, if the plane of the carbons is horizontal, there is 1 "8" per carbon atom standing upright, each with 1 electron, with the carbon nucleus at the "waist" of the 8. All the "+" lobes are on the top and all the "-" lobes the bottom. All the "+" lobes interact with each other and form a big bond. They mostly interact with their 2 immediate neighbors but to a certain extent each interacts with all 5 others. The same thing happens with all the "-" lobes on the other side of the plane of carbons. The merged "8" lobes form two "clouds" of electrons, one on each side of the plane of the carbons. How other atoms interact with these clouds of p electrons defines the chemistry of benzene and other ringed compounds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 14:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpdtk9$v26$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #510337 |
On 7/30/2015 1:29 PM, john wrote: > So, Odd > Why is the whole "delocalize " thing > necessary when - in a ring- one only > has to lend one way and borrow from > the other way to make it all equal? > Just saying > It's not that it's necessary to make things equal, John. As you say, there are other ways to make things equal. But the fact is that, if you have two different ways to make things equal, there are OTHER measurable properties that will end up being different in the two schemes. And the measurements of those properties tell you which scheme is right. The delocalized scheme has the advantage that it gets numbers right. In fact, delocalization wasn't proposed at first. Before delocalization was figured out, the structure of benzene was thought to be three double bonds and three single bonds -- the Kekule structure. But again, you can do calculations with the Kekule structure, and it gets some pretty serious things wrong. Check here to see the mismatch between the Kekule predictions and measurements: http://www.chemguide.co.uk/basicorg/bonding/benzene1.html So how to fix that? You have an idea, but it introduces symmetry to the orbitals, which (as I pointed out) can't be right. So the way to do that that is still consistent with sigma and pi bonding is the delocalization scheme. And you can do calculations with it, and lo and behold, the results amazingly do not have the mismatch with experimental data. http://www.chemguide.co.uk/basicorg/bonding/benzene2.html#top -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Enomis Skating <anomis.edenomis@libero.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 23:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5d2a187-f905-4c63-a723-fa961e072163@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #510381 |
Il giorno giovedì 30 luglio 2015 21:24:01 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin ha scritto: > On 7/30/2015 1:29 PM, john wrote: > > So, Odd > > Why is the whole "delocalize " thing > > necessary when - in a ring- one only > > has to lend one way and borrow from > > the other way to make it all equal? > > Just saying > > > > It's not that it's necessary to make things equal, John. As you say, > there are other ways to make things equal. > > But the fact is that, if you have two different ways to make things > equal, there are OTHER measurable properties that will end up being > different in the two schemes. And the measurements of those properties > tell you which scheme is right. > > The delocalized scheme has the advantage that it gets numbers right. > > In fact, delocalization wasn't proposed at first. Before delocalization > was figured out, the structure of benzene was thought to be three double > bonds and three single bonds -- the Kekule structure. But again, you can > do calculations with the Kekule structure, and it gets some pretty > serious things wrong. Check here to see the mismatch between the Kekule > predictions and measurements: > http://www.chemguide.co.uk/basicorg/bonding/benzene1.html However, now this sounds prehistoric, Benzene molecule has perfect D_6h symmetry, and both theory and experiments say so. I don't understand John's model, most probably my fault, but it don't seem to negate the equivalence of the six bonds (length and strength), so I don't see what the Kekule argument might serve here. > So how to fix that? You have an idea, but it introduces symmetry to the > orbitals, which (as I pointed out) can't be right. So the way to do that > that is still consistent with sigma and pi bonding is the delocalization > scheme. And you can do calculations with it, and lo and behold, the > results amazingly do not have the mismatch with experimental data. > http://www.chemguide.co.uk/basicorg/bonding/benzene2.html#top In this site they go through to a certain point with acceptable accurateness. However, delocalization is important but for Benzene and all other ring molecules it is not the end of the story. Delocalization is good in that it gives a stability bonus, but the latter is subjected to selection rules which they fail to even mention. For benzene-like molecules with any ring size, stability is greatly enhanced if the number of pi electron-pairs is odd (2k+1), when they are even (2k) stability is decreased and the implied anti-bonus is perhaps avoided by the molecule (for instance in cyclooctatetraene), and no bonus if the electrons are odd: this was first clearly put forward by Hueckel. > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables regards Angelo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 06:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dce923a7-8800-40f5-98fb-33ca3ac00a4e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #510904 |
Not even worth argument. Currently theory says the electrons' pathway is random. But they stay within orbitals. So they don't move? Because if they do, they radiate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 16:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpnseu$qug$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #510937 |
On 08/03/2015 03:53 PM, john wrote: > Not even worth argument. > Currently theory says the electrons' > pathway is random. > But they stay within orbitals. > So they don't move? > Because if they do, they radiate > Rather not determinable than random. Orbital has 2 meanings - a particular quantum state of electron - a part of 3d spaces where the electron dwells with defined probabity, with surface of the constant local probability. Of course they move. Their quantum number n relates to energy of moving electron, and quantum number l relates to its orbital angular momentum. They do not usually radiate as they cannot deliberately chnage their energy. If they can, then they eventually radiate, if lower energy quantum state is unoccupied, and they do so with some probability for spontaneous emission. Related coefficients for spontaneous emission were AFAIK calculated by Einstein. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 09:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpnstl$2cv$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #510937 |
On 8/3/2015 8:53 AM, john wrote: > Not even worth argument. > Currently theory says the electrons' > pathway is random. No, John, that is NOT what quantum mechanics says. > But they stay within orbitals. > So they don't move? > Because if they do, they radiate > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 14:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7bf25e4c-fa95-48f7-b7e7-1fe9752681a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #510940 |
What is the electrons movement, Odd? Random? Controlled? Predictable? Describable? Tell me
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 16:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpoo5f$3kk$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #511053 |
On 8/3/2015 4:18 PM, john wrote: > What is the electrons movement, Odd? > Random? > Controlled? > Predictable? > Describable? > Tell me > Random means no predictability at all: no idea where it is or where it is going. That's not what quantum mechanics says at all. Full determinism is you know EXACTLY where it is and EXACTLY where it is going. That is also not what quantum mechanics says. Quantum mechanics will tell give you a very accurate number for the percentage of times you will find it in this region and the percentage of times it will be found going this way. Pick any region and any motion range, and you'll be able to calculate what percentage of times you will find it in those bands. So it's in between fully random and fully deterministic. Now, if you're a black and white thinker like some people, you'd be tempted to say that if you don't know EXACTLY where it is or EXACTLY where it's going, then you don't know ANYTHING about where it is or ANYTHING about where it's going. But that would be foolish, wouldn't it, John? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 16:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9bea2e0-b603-465a-8786-3c76fd12e85e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #511062 |
Now, Odd. Your electron is moving hither and yon within a closed space (dictated by?), and it never accelerates? It has to. Therefore it has to radiate. It is just doing so with radiation that is too small-grained for OUR emr to have an EVENT with
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 07:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpqbql$de5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #511065 |
On 8/3/2015 6:10 PM, john wrote: > Now, Odd. > Your electron is moving hither and yon > within a closed space (dictated by?), > and it never accelerates? No, it never accelerates. > It has to. No, it doesn't. > Therefore it has to radiate. > It is just doing so with radiation that > is too small-grained for OUR emr to > have an EVENT with > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de38aa93-6510-4259-b2e1-521b71ca842f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #511146 |
B0d says- on acceleration- it never happens. Particles go from stationary to moving "hither and yon" within an orbital, but never accelerate. Can Bod explain how?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 10:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mptare$5fc$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #511384 |
On 8/5/2015 10:33 AM, john wrote: > B0d says- on acceleration- it never > happens. > Particles go from stationary to moving Sorry, but no, they do not go from stationary to moving. I don't know where you ever got the idea that an electron in a bound state ever goes from stationary to moving. Can you explain how you came up with that idea? > "hither and yon" within an orbital, but > never accelerate. > Can Bod explain how? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96dc0439-0309-4856-9f30-63b90c9c7178@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #511387 |
Which are they , Odd? I'm asking YOU. Stationary? Moving?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 13:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mptl2e$u2a$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #511412 |
On 8/5/2015 12:38 PM, john wrote: > Which are they , Odd? > I'm asking YOU. > Stationary? > Moving? > Velocity is not a sensible parameter for an electron in a bound state in an atom. Kinetic energy is, and that's a measurable quantity, but not velocity. That's a technical answer. What also true is that they are not changing from stationary to moving. They are not accelerating, in other words. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7f27440-61fd-4e71-8796-e2d7e1ed4c7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #511431 |
there is always the centripetal (?) to the nucleus > They are not accelerating, in other words. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d20492a-5cd1-4a9f-aa55-867075f8f413@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #511461 |
Odd said No answer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 15:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpts23$h8h$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #511465 |
On 8/5/2015 3:24 PM, john wrote: > Odd said > No answer > John, it's like asking "Are electrons particles or waves? And how to they transition from one to the other and back again?" The answers are "Neither, and they don't." And then you say "Not an answer. Has to be one or the other or both and if it's both, then they have to go from one to the other." And then the answer is "No, John, they don't have to be one or the other. They are a third kind of thing, the think you call 'magic' because it isn't one of the two things you know." It's amazing to me how your narrow range of concepts and your EXTREMELY narrow understanding of how things work confines you. Anything that doesn't fit between your blinders becomes magic. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 15:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af58eec5-bfdc-4181-91b6-cb2239a38ed1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #511468 |
So Odd Your "point particles". Electrons Do they move and change direction?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 20:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpubt0$i4i$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #511481 |
On 8/5/2015 5:50 PM, john wrote: > So > Odd > Your "point particles". > Electrons > Do they move and change direction? > They have kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. They don't change direction. That would be an acceleration. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web