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

171–180 of 207 posts

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

#171

Post by WillAdams »

smj-edison wrote: post #148
WillAdams wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck! I assume you are familiar with: https://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ I hope and pray that your research helps to make the world a better place and that the rest of us can use your knowledge to help to make the world a place which merits your research.

Thank you for the kind words! I've been wanting to do this research precisely because of firsthand experience with how hard chronic illness can be, and I'm hoping to attack it with a systems approach. I haven't seen that website before, but it sounds pretty accurate from what I've heard. It's insane how high of a mountain needs to be climbed just to catch up to the state-of-the-art, and how much work is needed to pus…

I view the difficulty/breadth and depth of knowledge necessary to begin a PhD as a tribute to humanity's successes (and hope to embark upon my own after retirement, though it'll be in CNC machining).

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

#172

Post by mr_toad »

prox wrote: post #160
moelf wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, 90%+ of the mass of a proton comes from moving stuff, rather than rest mass of the quarks. so the real world impact is, having anything at all

I think I recently learned that the Higgs is actually not that much part of imparting mass for atomic particles. I thought it imparted all mass.

> I thought it imparted all mass.

It’s all relative; in the quarks frame of reference it does get all its mass from the interaction with the Higgs field.

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

#173

Post by Jblx2 »

amelius wrote: post #144
gcanyon wrote: post #123

> The increased nuclear mass causes orbiting electrons to speed up to a significant fraction of the speed of light, where the rules of Einstein’s theory of relativity are important. Fun fact: this is why mercury is liquid at room temperature. Its inner electrons move at close to 60% the speed of light, pulling in its outer electrons more tightly, making it harder for it to bond and be solid. (I am not a physicist, do…

Meanwhile there are quarks inside every regular atom moving at speeds like 0.99995c ...

If the spatial extent of the proton is not infinite, this would imply that the charged quarks making up the proton are accelerating. Why aren't these quarks then emitting electromagnetic radiation, thus slowing down? I thought electrons were essentially standing waves around the nucleus, and thus not accelerating. Maybe there is a good youtube video explainer? Seems like there would also be an associated temperature and blackbody radiation of these quarks.

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

#174

Post by CamperBob2 »

Jblx2 wrote: post #173
amelius wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile there are quarks inside every regular atom moving at speeds like 0.99995c ...

If the spatial extent of the proton is not infinite, this would imply that the charged quarks making up the proton are accelerating. Why aren't these quarks then emitting electromagnetic radiation, thus slowing down? I thought electrons were essentially standing waves around the nucleus, and thus not accelerating. Maybe there is a good youtube video explainer? Seems like there would also be an associated temperature…

Quarks don't have quantum energy states to transition between, hence they aren't subject to radiating photons due to acceleration.

Similar to why the electron in a hydrogen atom doesn't keep emitting radiation and crash into the nucleus once it reaches its ground state... there's no lower state for it to jump to.

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

#175

Post by Jblx2 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #174
Jblx2 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the spatial extent of the proton is not infinite, this would imply that the charged quarks making up the proton are accelerating. Why aren't these quarks then emitting electromagnetic radiation, thus slowing down? I thought electrons were essentially standing waves around the nucleus, and thus not accelerating. Maybe there is a good youtube video explainer? Seems like there would also be an associated temperature…

Quarks don't have quantum energy states to transition between, hence they aren't subject to radiating photons due to acceleration. Similar to why the electron in a hydrogen atom doesn't keep emitting radiation and crash into the nucleus once it reaches its ground state... there's no lower state for it to jump to.

Electrons in an antenna aren't transitioning between quantum states and are still radiating.

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

#176

Post by CamperBob2 »

Jblx2 wrote: post #175
CamperBob2 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quarks don't have quantum energy states to transition between, hence they aren't subject to radiating photons due to acceleration. Similar to why the electron in a hydrogen atom doesn't keep emitting radiation and crash into the nucleus once it reaches its ground state... there's no lower state for it to jump to.

Electrons in an antenna aren't transitioning between quantum states and are still radiating.

That's a good point, I don't know what's up with that. Google just says, "A single oscillating electron does not continuously emit radio waves; it has a microscopic probability of emitting a single RF photon during a given cycle." It would be necessary to delve into the whole QED thing to get a better explanation, based on what I'm reading.

Either way, quarks don't have an electron-like magnetic moment, so they aren't capable of coupling to the EM field.

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

#177

Post by DHRicoF »

Jblx2 wrote: post #175
CamperBob2 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quarks don't have quantum energy states to transition between, hence they aren't subject to radiating photons due to acceleration. Similar to why the electron in a hydrogen atom doesn't keep emitting radiation and crash into the nucleus once it reaches its ground state... there's no lower state for it to jump to.

Electrons in an antenna aren't transitioning between quantum states and are still radiating.

Yes they are. They are transitioning through levels in the conduction band where you have plenty of them.

Every time you see a macroscopic phenomena, you are looking at a stupidly high amount of quantum levels with very similar energies.

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

#178

Post by sehugg »

gcanyon wrote: post #123

> The increased nuclear mass causes orbiting electrons to speed up to a significant fraction of the speed of light, where the rules of Einstein’s theory of relativity are important. Fun fact: this is why mercury is liquid at room temperature. Its inner electrons move at close to 60% the speed of light, pulling in its outer electrons more tightly, making it harder for it to bond and be solid. (I am not a physicist, do…

And relativity describes the orbit of the quick-moving planet Mercury which shares its name with the quick-flowing element. What a world.

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

#179

Post by timcobb »

nosrep wrote: post #32
timcobb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It says, in the document:

> Exclusion Statement: Molecular orbital theory is recommended as a way to provide deeper insight into bonding. However, the AP Exam will neither explicitly assess molecular orbital diagrams, filling of molecular orbitals, nor the distinction between bonding, nonbonding, and antibonding orbitals.

Orbital theory is usually taught in organic chemistry and then inorganic for those who take that in college. AP chem targets "gen chem" which does not, as the above statement says, does not get into orbitals on that level at all. I'm familiar with gen chem as taught at least in 3 universities, none touched molecular orbitals.

If someone were to teach orbital theory in general chemistry, it would be a lot of hand waving and not much actual mathematics which was the point of the original comment. To cover molecular orbital theory is satisfactorily. You need to know quite a bit of the mathematics behind differential equations and statistical mechanics etc. AP chem isn't going to cover this. But maybe your 9th grade differential geometry class covered all this ;))

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

#180

Post by dustingetz »

Jblx2 wrote: post #173
amelius wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile there are quarks inside every regular atom moving at speeds like 0.99995c ...

If the spatial extent of the proton is not infinite, this would imply that the charged quarks making up the proton are accelerating. Why aren't these quarks then emitting electromagnetic radiation, thus slowing down? I thought electrons were essentially standing waves around the nucleus, and thus not accelerating. Maybe there is a good youtube video explainer? Seems like there would also be an associated temperature…

because conservation of energy dominates
Post reply on HN