Link to paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.201408211
Chemists Confirm the Existence of New Type of Bond
11–20 of 23 posts
Re: Chemists Confirm the Existence of New Type of Bond
#12> chemists experimenting at a nuclear accelerator in Vancouver observed that a reaction between bromine and muonium—a hydrogen isotope—slowed down when they increased the temperature Isn't saying muonium is "a hydrogen isotope" sort of like saying a car is "a horse isotope"?
Sounds like more of a pseudo-isotope?
I thought proton equivalency was the fundamental definition of an isotope, though perhaps that's just a lie you feed chemistry undergrads.
Re: Chemists Confirm the Existence of New Type of Bond
#13> chemists experimenting at a nuclear accelerator in Vancouver observed that a reaction between bromine and muonium—a hydrogen isotope—slowed down when they increased the temperature Isn't saying muonium is "a hydrogen isotope" sort of like saying a car is "a horse isotope"?
Or maybe saying an ostrich is a horse isotope.
Re: Chemists Confirm the Existence of New Type of Bond
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
The authors of the article in topic provide a more coherent explanation than I could ever articulate: >> Conventionally, the formation of chemical bonds is due to a decrease in potential energy (PE), often accompanied by small increases in vibrational zero point energy (ZPE). In principle, this basic mechanism can be completely reversed, wherein chemical bonds may even be formed by an increase in PE if there is a suf…
Thanks. But I think your previous comment has an interesting point about why muons are different than electrons. I'm not sure because I hadn't made the calculations, so any confirmation or refutation is welcome. Let's try: When two normal molecules, with electrons, are close, they can form different kind of bonds. The weakest bond is the "van der Waals" bond. It's caused because the electrons of the molecules change…
It's the proton that is replaced, not the electron.
Re: Chemists Confirm the Existence of New Type of Bond
#15(With a Fleming working on a bond, you could say the atomic interaction is shaken, not stirred.)
Ha!
So, does that mean the idiotic idea behind that magic material from The Core called Unobtanium might actually be real?
Re: Chemists Confirm the Existence of New Type of Bond
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. But I think your previous comment has an interesting point about why muons are different than electrons. I'm not sure because I hadn't made the calculations, so any confirmation or refutation is welcome. Let's try: When two normal molecules, with electrons, are close, they can form different kind of bonds. The weakest bond is the "van der Waals" bond. It's caused because the electrons of the molecules change…
It's the proton that is replaced, not the electron.
Ups! :( You are right and now I'm confused.
Re: Chemists Confirm the Existence of New Type of Bond
#17> chemists experimenting at a nuclear accelerator in Vancouver observed that a reaction between bromine and muonium—a hydrogen isotope—slowed down when they increased the temperature Isn't saying muonium is "a hydrogen isotope" sort of like saying a car is "a horse isotope"?
Sounds like more of a pseudo-isotope? I thought proton equivalency was the fundamental definition of an isotope, though perhaps that's just a lie you feed chemistry undergrads.
The antimuon is "proton-like" for a lot of purposes: it has a +1 charge and it's much heavier than an electron. So you've got a heavy bit with +1 charge and an electron orbiting it, you call it hydrogen.
Re: Chemists Confirm the Existence of New Type of Bond
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like more of a pseudo-isotope? I thought proton equivalency was the fundamental definition of an isotope, though perhaps that's just a lie you feed chemistry undergrads.
The antimuon is "proton-like" for a lot of purposes: it has a +1 charge and it's much heavier than an electron. So you've got a heavy bit with +1 charge and an electron orbiting it, you call it hydrogen.
It would have been very nice had the article said that, and described what "muonium" is. I took it to be a proton plus a muon, not an anti-muon plus an electron.
To describe it as "a hydrogen isotope" is just about the optimal mix of uninformative and misleading!
Re: Chemists Confirm the Existence of New Type of Bond
#19Why is the muonic hydrogen required? From the Bohr formula the Rydberg energy of the muonic hydrogen would be some 200 times larger than regular hydrogen. Anyone know how that plays a role? It can't be sqrt(spring/mass) for vibration since the proton is anyway already some 2000x heavier than the electron. Unless spring somehow depended on the Rydberg energy, which is possible since the P.E-K.E would depend on mass vi…
This is muonium: anti-proton plus electron, not muonic hydrogen (proton plus muon). I made the same mistake: it's a very poorly written article.
Re: Chemists Confirm the Existence of New Type of Bond
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
The antimuon is "proton-like" for a lot of purposes: it has a +1 charge and it's much heavier than an electron. So you've got a heavy bit with +1 charge and an electron orbiting it, you call it hydrogen.
It would have been very nice had the article said that, and described what "muonium" is. I took it to be a proton plus a muon, not an anti-muon plus an electron. To describe it as "a hydrogen isotope" is just about the optimal mix of uninformative and misleading!
It's probably as close as you can get to accuracy while still keeping those who passed their high school chemistry classes in your audience.
For the purposes of explanation, the antimuon-electron pair is chemically similar enough to a proton-electron pair to call it an isotope. It has a +1 massive center, with a probability distribution for a less-massive -1 charge cloud.
Deuterium and tritium, two true isotopes of hydrogen, increase the mass of the center by adding neutrons. An antimuon is, I think, about 10% the mass of a proton. So muonium would act a lot like extra-light hydrogen for the instant before it decays.
It would have been clearer to call it an "exotic atom, chemically similar to hydrogen", though. That wouldn't conflict with the common definition of isotope as an atom with the same number of protons as the reference atom, but with a different number of neutrons.
I'm actually not aware of any exotic atoms that are not chemically similar to hydrogen or antihydrogen, as getting an exotic helium-like atom would require forming a +2 exotic center and making two -1 charges interact with it before it decays. That is likely beyond our current capabilities.