mississippichem

Two electrons is one electron too many. It's really amazing that we can even get approximate solutions for large multi-electron systems. Without assuming the nuclei are still (Born-Oppenheimer) we wouldnt even be able to get that.

I was trying to imply that the t2g orbitals are not non-bonding. They do in fact contribute to the set of molecular orbitals just less so than eg.

Don't mess with the chef or the pay-clerk. *it's really kind of my own rendition of "don't defecate in your own backyard."

Yes.

Your link is broken. I think you have used "http://" twice in the url.

Are bonded states lower in energy than non-bonded states among otherwise degenerate atomic (d) orbitals?

I imagine you can calculate this from half-life data and simple arithmetic.

I second this answer completely.

you can think about this geometrically. Draw out the trigonal prismatic geometry with the set of d-orbitals overlayed. Think of an easier case. Are you familiar with the crystal field splitting arrangement for the octahedral geometry? Why is the set with t2g symmetry lowest in energy for octahedral complexes? Apply that same logic to the trigonal prismatic case remembering that there may be more than two sets of degenerate symmetries in this case.

Having only one valence electron (a doublet state radical) is not a requirement to form chemical bonds. Period. I don't see how this is relevant to the formation of elementary particles though. Interactions between electrons in atoms and molecules is the subject of chemistry and has almost nothing to do with the internal structure of (or lack of in mainstream physics) electrons.

xkcd

So you admit that at least some part of intelligence is influenced by environmental factors. If you had lived in Europe in the 1400's would you have been "stupid"? Take another example...a guy living in a nomadic desert tribe doesn't need to know any multi-variable calculus to survive. His living situation has not given him the luxury of being able to take the time to learn the finer points of mathematics and logic. He takes an IQ test and does very poorly but he is an expert desert navigator and knows everything there is to know about horse and camel care/riding/training. Should he be euthanized with all the other "idiots"?

Big shiny noisy bird that gives people a ride and flies very fast.

Well it gets a bit complicated for multi-electron systems. You have to account for electron-electron repulsive forces and that spawns a particularly nasty set of differential equations (far nastier than the regular Schroedinger equation). The atomic radius of beryllium is smaller than that of lithium yet they have the same highest occupied orbital in the ground state, (n=2, l=0). The nuclear charge is larger though. Similar trends are observed throughout the periodic table with a few exceptions. Not sure I understand the part about negative joules. All electrons in atomic orbitals have negative energies (think...you have to add joules to excite an electron to a higher energy state, and the ground state atomic orbitals are stable). Careful with chemist advice about atomic orbitals . Sometimes it's kind of luck of the draw whether or not they really know what they are talking about here. Maybe you just misunderstood what your chemist friend was saying though. (We also have a lot of specialized quantum jargon and conventions in chemistry that can be confusing to an outsider.)

Agreed very much. I don't understand all this talk of the superiority of "logic" over mathematics. Mathematics is nothing but the most formal, least ambiguous, least (cultural/ethno/language) bound form of logic. If we had this "ontological" argument in Chinese or Swahili the outcome may be different, i.e. some words have no direct translation to other languages. However, I speak no Finnish but I could go to Finland today and make a precise mathematical statement with no ambiguity assuming we use similar notational convention. Any non-quantitative argument eventually degrades to semantics or is at least limited by word choice or prosaic ambiguity. The need for a non-mathematical "ontology" is, in my opinion, an immature sentiment held by those who don't want to put in the tears and sweat to understand extremely complicated and finesse models (or they just don't realize the importance of the mathematics yet). The devil is in the details, and the details are found in the math.

Homework right? Try showing your ideas and posters will comment or offer guidance. We're not in the homework answer business (and if we were we would charge )

Wrong. Try Watson and Crick.

Physics treatment of biology: Consider a spherical DNA molecule in a vacuum with zero potential energy...assume the DNA molecule has only one electron...

The example I gave doesn't have an enantiomer. Your first example does have an enantiomer and so does your second. If you think this is painful. Try one with a tougher geometry like the seven-coordinate capped-trigonal-anti-prismatic . These exercises are not fun but they really build your 3D visualization chops which are crucial in chemistry.

I know what you mean. Sometimes the best way is to write it out. For example here's one isomer. Bpy: eq-eq H2O: ax Amine: eq Amine:eq Cl: ax Now it's easier to compare and see what is redundant.

Bringing the other ligands back in: Now try to draw all the possible isomers for bpy being eq-eq and then all the possibilities for bpy being eq-ax. Remember that there are two amines and they can be axial or equatorial.

Try two. Equitorial-equitorial and axial-equitorial. Remember we are assuming all other ligands are generic and identical for now.

Spin pairing of electrons is irrelevant to your claim. I direct you back to swansont's above question which you have not yet begun to answer.

Allow me to translate: electrons with the same principle quantum number (the "n" levels) can take on one of several angular momentum states. An electron in an n=m level can take on one of m angular momentum states from 0 to n-1. So for n=2 there are two possible angular momentum states, 0 and 1. There are actually additional quanutm numbers that further define the "orbital shape" as well (the next quantum member distinguishes between orbitals with the same angular momentum that are degenerate in the absence of an applied magnetic field). schroedinger's_hat: you could've just used the time independent equation with a potential .

Right. Now tell me how many different ways bpy can bind to the ruthenium center (assuming for a moment there are only two types of ligand, 1 bpy and four generic "other").