mississippichem

If mooeypoo hadn't have moved this to speculations I or someone else would have so let's just drop that one please. Temporocitor, do you realize that everything you've posted in this thread is nonsensical? Please take the time time to learn how physics is properly argued. That is, with math and experimental evidence. You have posted a sermon instead.

Not really. In order for a vibrational transition to be IR active, it has to result in a net change in the dipole moment of the molecule so homonuclear diatomic molecules or single atoms will not show IR absorption. But look at methane. We can bend one of the C-H bonds and change the dipole moment so it's IR active.

They should. IMO it is a silly convention not to.

The old nomenclature of "metallic bonds" can be misleading as there not really any distinct "bonds" (I'm defining bond here as a a set of two or more electrons that may or may not be spin paired but occupy some orbital with a defined symmetry and energy). Like swansont said you have bands of different energies in metallic solids. The bands that are delocalized over many metal atoms are conduction bands. The bands that are bound tighter around specific atomic nuclei (like in non-metal atoms) are the valence bands. Entanglement plays no part in this.

Why should anyone base their conclusion on what lends itself to rich discussion? If "there is nothing" need we go any further?

Tell us what you know about assigning priorities for R/S designations. Let's see what logic you've been using to attempt the problem. Then we can offer guidance accordingly.

Alright. The language I used in the post you quoted was a bit on the harsh side and for that I apologize to IsraelUnoone, you, and to other readers who were offended by it. That was out of line on my part. However I stand by the content of my post and still maintain that the OP is baseless speculation.

That's not data or evidence. Stop posturing and pony up the numbers.

Alright let's see the data already! We'll judge it on it's scientific merit alone. You are witnessing an informal implementation of the scientific process. No data, no evidence...no acceptance.

Bold mine First of all you make a strong point. I agree and will not pretend that my active denial of the existence of all conceivable deities is based on rigorous logic. However, I still draw the same conclusion as I've still yet to see any convincing positive evidence of a god existing under anyone's definition. As you are well aware, even more so than I, you can define just about anything in mathematics. The million dollar question is "will it be useful". I find the abstract deistic definitions of god to be just like useless definitions in mathematics. I say in response to those who would make such a definition of a god: "You can define it that way, but I see no reason to as it will lead to contradictions and/or will not accomplish anything of interest." Again, your point is still strong and I cannot with strict logic invalidate it. On a side note: where have you been man? Don't be a stranger.

How many watts is a jiggawatt? You claimed it can take power up to a jiggawatt! You also claim to be able to derive every mathematical formula from your work. I call BS, pony up and start deriving. Oh, you are also BS'ing about "Stephen Hawkins". It's Stephen Hawking you genius. You didn't even bother to google the spelling. Why should I believe you have a unified theory of...whatever it's supposed to be relevant too when you can't even use standard units, use LaTeX, or spell the names of famous physicists? I think you are just making crap up honestly. My young cousin actually did better science in his fifth grade science fair project. Really!

Bulla, this makes no sense. Please stop posting random incoherent rants. It is not becoming nor does it impress anyone. You can't just make stuff up, call it science, then act surprised when someone calls foul.

Keep on topic please. I post this as a regular poster and not as staff. We have a good thread going. Don't derail it!

Right. To add to that, IR radiation is generally on the order of the energies between rotational/vibrational levels in molecules where, as you stated, atomic electronic transitions for the first few n levels are usually more in the UV/X-ray region.

I think you may grossly underestimate the variety of conditions required to make "every conceivable organic chemical reaction" happen. As far as every conceivable organic compound existing in one place...well that can't even be close to correct as many conceivable compounds can't both exist in the same place as they will degrade each other. What is it that you intend to discuss here Widdekind?

You know I've recently read some literature on sequestration of carbon dioxide by incorporating it into biodegradable gamma-cyclic polycarbonates. Somehow they accomplished this with a Sn(II) catalyst too directly from CO2 gas (though it was a high pressure process). I'll have to dig and see if I can find it again as I believe it is relevant to this discussion. I share your skepticism of this technology. There are reasons that our whole society runs on the oxidation (rapid combustion) of alkanes and not the reduction of carbonates and carbon dioxide. One of those reasons is that [math] \Delta H_{f} = -3.95 \ \mathrm{kJ} \cdot \mathrm{mol} ^{-1} [/math] for CO2 at standard conditions. It's a tall order to find a way to economically synthesize your way out of that potential well! There is also a massive kinetic inertness problem that you get from a carbon surrounded by two electron withdrawing oxygen atoms and two cumulated pi-bonds. This of course leads one to the question "what do we do with all this carbamic acid or carbon dioxide we've collected!?" Though I really appreciate the chemistry behind the MOF you have presented, and I think it's a valid avenue to pursue for chemistry's sake, I just don't see this ever making a difference in atmospheric CO2 for engineering reasons. On the other hand, the chemistry of metal organic frameworks is very rich and has recently piqued my interest with the possibility of some of then being good electron/electron hole/exciton semi-conductors. Agreed. Bold mine I'm hip to this research as well and I think it shows promise just based on novel electronic properties alone. I recently saw a speaker who was making similar MOF's with a focus on molecular self assembly, i.e. crystal morphology control through varying reaction time. Great Topic. I'll try and conjure something else up to contribute. EDIT: the [imath] \eta ^{4} [/imath] binding mode chloride bridging four Cu centers in a plane freaks me out

Education and scientific research, both of which can alleviate all other problems. Kill a million birds with two stones.

I agree. Anything by cotton should be taken as authoritative Though that book may be a bit tough for less experienced readers. I honestly don't have any better suggestions though.

Well that can depend a lot on conditions, namely solvent conditions. The two unimolecular processes you mentioned go through a carbocation intermediate. A polar solvent helps to promote the solvation of that charged intermediate and therefore promotes the unimolecular process. Now kinetically speaking, the bimolecular processes do tend to be faster as they only have one activation barrier and no intermediate with an observable half-life. If we could allow an SN2 and an SN1 process to compete for the same substrate and same leaving group going to the same product (in a non-polar solvent), I imagine that the SN2 process would dominate as their is no solvent stabilization for a charged intermediate and the activation barrier for the formation of the LG-C-Nu transition state complex should in general be less than the barrier to cleave a charged leaving group away from a charged substrate in a non-polar solvent. In a polar solvent it's harder to make a general statement as dielectric constants, polarizability of solvent molecules and other considerations quickly make any qualitative thoughts reduce to a battle of effects (of unknown magnitude). So in short, SN2 and E2 tend to be kinetically favored in non-polar solvents. SN1 and E1 are favored are thermodynamically favored in polar solvents. Okay fair enough but think about rate determining steps. The rate equation for a process may have just one concentration term no? To be a bit more picky what about the relaxation and destruction of an exciplex or excimer? Some of these processes can be even zero order IIRC as they are only rate limited by the stability of the excited electronic state.

There are most definitely people who publish in the field of computational chemistry who are not "chemists" by traditional standards. A degree in physics, computer science, or mathematics will give you some skills that are useful for computational science in general, more so than a chemistry degree will prepare you for some of these things. However the best way I've heard it put is that many problems in computational chemistry are motivated by ongoing problems in organic, inorganic, bio, or experimental physical chemistry and without a strong background in chemistry you may not be able to independently determine an interesting result when you see one! Another thing to consider is that it may be difficult to maintain a career by doing computational chemistry alone. The field is young and funding can be slim. Many people who work in computational chemistry successfully also incorporate good experimental physical chemistry or relevant physics work. Physicists are more than equipped to handle the physics of molecular science, however once again only a background in chemistry will allow you to understand the scope and or relevance of problems and solutions. With all that in mind know that there are some highly sophisticated methods out there such as relativistic density functional theory and similar that a rigorous understanding of is only accessible to those with very strong math and physics backgrounds. The actual implementation of these methods can also present a significant challenge for computer science people. All in all I recommend that you do whatever floats your boat as you'll probably accomplish whatever you want if you learn the relevant material. Just make sure that you at least acquire the equivalent of a year of organic chemistry and a year of physical chemistry (Thermo, stat-mech, kinetics, equilibria, and simple QM). Those two courses will very much make you familiar with the nature of chemical problems and how that can be solved with physical methods.

No significance that I'm aware of. Just decoration. Aren't they pretty though :/

bold mine I genuinely enjoy helping people with their coursework. Some of the trickier questions keep me sharp and some of the easier ones help me learn to break down concepts that I see as obvious into explainable and understandable terms which makes me a better communicator of science over time. Sometimes people on the staff are incorrect or unclear in their explanations, another staff member more knowledgeable in that area may come along and correct that. That's good too, I like being corrected as I learn something from it. That's why I like helping people with coursework. It helps me practice my strengths and it exposes my weaknesses which is what being a better scientist is all about. Though I must admit I do get tired of elementary organic/gen. chem. problems sometimes. If someone brings a physical chemistry or chemical physics question I jump at the opportunity as that is my true love.

I second that. You won't be reducing much of anything without reductant.

But couldn't I just make up anything and then point out that you can't disprove it? Are all ideas that can't be falsified valid? Of course not. Prove that Zeus doesn't exist. You can't. So is the Zeus hypothesis automatically worthy of consideration? He has ancient documents that talk about him just like Jesus or Yahweh.

Let's hope none of us go the way of Marie Curie.