Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy elements, new research shows

brown.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 207 posts

Re: Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy elements, new research shows

#31

Post by asdff »

compass_copium wrote: post #27
asdff wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in undergraduate chemistry at least. Maybe chem majors had it different. Organic chemistry 1 was basically rote memorization of various reactions and catalysts and their required conditions. Exam questions would be some organic molecule start and some organic molecule end result and you'd have to draw out each and every intermediary step to get to that end result. Organic chemistry 2 was exactly the same just mor…

You had a poor organic course. Even orgo 1 should have you thinking about resonance + electron-rich or -deficient areas of molecules and how those lead to reactions.

Of course we talked about those. But if you went off only those you'd miss the edge cases and gotchas the prof laid for you in step 8 of the synthesis. Couldn't get around just doing worksheet after worksheet after worksheet of reactions to try and drive it into your head. Going to office hours to beg for more practice reactions. Everyone scheduled the rest of their major around when they would have to take ochem to make sure the rest of it was as light as possible. Uncurved class averages would be in the 50s.

Re: Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy elements, new research shows

#32

Post by nosrep »

timcobb wrote: post #26
loeg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted I took AP Chem 20 years ago, but I don't remember those names (sigma and pi bonds) being covered at all. (I got a 5 on the test, for what it's worth.)

They are not covered in AP chemistry this is just your typical "when I studied differential geometry in high school" HN comment

they are featured in collegeboard's course and exam description: https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-chemistry-co...

Re: Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy elements, new research shows

#33

Post by compass_copium »

loeg wrote: post #16
aaaronic wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigma and Pi bonds are typically covered in AP Chemistry, even if the “why/how” is hand waved pretty heavily. The valence cloud shapes get wild for heavier atoms and bonds between two or more atoms add even more to the mix.

Granted I took AP Chem 20 years ago, but I don't remember those names (sigma and pi bonds) being covered at all. (I got a 5 on the test, for what it's worth.)

I also took it 20 years ago but I feel like they were (of course I also did undergrad chem 16 years ago so I may be conflating things). It's difficult to explain isomers without explaining why multiple bonds don't rotate.

Re: Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy elements, new research shows

#34

Post by DiscourseFan »

ajkjk wrote: post #10
nomel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had incredible difficulties with Chemistry, more than any other subject, because most everything was hand waved away, requiring mostly rote memorization. I could never get an intuitive understanding, partly because my profs seemingly refusing to think about things from a physics perspective. My physics prof was able to help with some of it. It was very odd. If I would have stuck with it, would things have improved?

Part of the problem is that the difficulty curve becomes, like, superexponential if you try to do the actual math. Fairly elementary atoms require the full theory of quantum mechanics to justify rigorously, and anything more complicated than that requires huge bodies of specialist knowledge on approximation schemes (I assume; I haven't studied them, but given that helium already requires approximations I'm assuming t…

But oftentimes theoretical chemistry is not as important as what we get out of experiments because unlike physics, which attempts to derive general laws of nature, chemistry has to deal with the nitty gritty of the diversity of actual miscroscopic interactions of things. Any theory that is not entirely rigorous or even has slight room for an exception will be ignored by necessity, and physics is chock full of such examples. Biology is in a certain sense better (since it deals with larger things) and in a certain sense worse (as it relies on dogma and mysticism, at its essence, to explain the systems of life), and still nobody has gone beyond Aristotle and Kant in giving anything close to a rigorous definition of life as such.

Re: Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy elements, new research shows

#35

Post by nsz65 »

nomel wrote: post #7
aaaronic wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigma and Pi bonds are typically covered in AP Chemistry, even if the “why/how” is hand waved pretty heavily. The valence cloud shapes get wild for heavier atoms and bonds between two or more atoms add even more to the mix.

I had incredible difficulties with Chemistry, more than any other subject, because most everything was hand waved away, requiring mostly rote memorization. I could never get an intuitive understanding, partly because my profs seemingly refusing to think about things from a physics perspective. My physics prof was able to help with some of it. It was very odd. If I would have stuck with it, would things have improved?

Yes its like cooking or music. You start just by learning whats in the kitchen and on repeating steps. This creates latent or tacit knowledge that helps with the Why questions down the road.

Re: Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy elements, new research shows

#36

Post by gus_massa »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21
marcosdumay wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The physics that predicts chemistry is about 100 years old. Almost nothing people study up to high-school is that recent, and that modern physics tends to be really hard.

> physics that predicts chemistry Do we have this?

Yes but ... after a few not so mild assumptions, it takes exponential time to solve it. In this case, you need 6 electrons in 2x5 orbitals for the Carbon and 82 electrons and 2x43 orbitals for Bismuth- (perhaps more, I usually work with lighter atom). So now the free parameter are Combinatoric(96,88)~=3E13 and you must construct a matrix of [3E13 x 3E13] and then find the minimal eigenvalue. So you must make a lot of simplifications and more assumptions to get the result before the universe dies.

And this is for a very cold isolated molecule like in this experiment. If you have many moving molecules surrounded by a lot of water molecules at a usual room temperature, it gets much much much worse.

Re: Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy elements, new research shows

#37

Post by ferfumarma »

nanolith wrote: post #14

Wait... wasn't it already understood that relativity influences electron orbits of heavy elements? I clearly remember being taught some of this in physics, in the mid-noughties. For instance, we know that gold gets its color from relativistic effects. https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/s3

Yes: the article says "since the 70s"

Re: Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy elements, new research shows

#38

Post by deadbabe »

nanolith wrote: post #14

Wait... wasn't it already understood that relativity influences electron orbits of heavy elements? I clearly remember being taught some of this in physics, in the mid-noughties. For instance, we know that gold gets its color from relativistic effects. https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/s3

I don’t get it, someone explain? Doesn’t everything get color from relativistic effects?

Re: Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy elements, new research shows

#39

Post by colechristensen »

nanolith wrote: post #14

Wait... wasn't it already understood that relativity influences electron orbits of heavy elements? I clearly remember being taught some of this in physics, in the mid-noughties. For instance, we know that gold gets its color from relativistic effects. https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/s3

The Dirac equation which is the equation for describing the wavelike behavior of electrons. It predicted the existence of antimatter and particle spin.

You start with the Schrödinger equation, add relativity to get the Klein-Gordon equation which is a mess because it's second order in time involving negative probabilities, if you in ways "take the square root" of it you get the Dirac equation.

Relativity has been part of the understanding of electrons since 1928.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation

Re: Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy elements, new research shows

#40

Post by breezybottom »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #34
ajkjk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is that the difficulty curve becomes, like, superexponential if you try to do the actual math. Fairly elementary atoms require the full theory of quantum mechanics to justify rigorously, and anything more complicated than that requires huge bodies of specialist knowledge on approximation schemes (I assume; I haven't studied them, but given that helium already requires approximations I'm assuming t…

But oftentimes theoretical chemistry is not as important as what we get out of experiments because unlike physics, which attempts to derive general laws of nature, chemistry has to deal with the nitty gritty of the diversity of actual miscroscopic interactions of things. Any theory that is not entirely rigorous or even has slight room for an exception will be ignored by necessity, and physics is chock full of such ex…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN