mississippichem

Agreed. To add a bit, I don't believe that the radical pathway is symmetry allowed here. Thats definitely proceeding [2+2].

Rubbish. Catalysis of many different reactions is already understood without evoking anthropomorphic molecules. I hope you're prepared to argue for a while about this one. We don't get many chemistry speculations around here. I've been waiting for you...welcome. Begin by presenting some evidence of your outlandish assertions.

And this is why you're misguided: Physicists need high tech materials to conduct high tech experiments. Who do you think makes superconductors and ultra-pure zone refined silicon for electronics? Physics is more fundamental than chemistry. But physics is dead in the water without chemistry also.

Perhaps you should try Newtonian mechanics 101 first as you clearly have zero understanding of physics or even the scientific method itself. I'm being totally serious here: How can you really comment with authority on any of this when you lack the essential skills to even comprehend rudimentary mechanics? Please don't take this as insulting. In fact, you are insulting the massive body of work from great past physicists. It's as if you think you can just show up at an office building and declare yourself the CEO. Do you really think you can hang with a PhD physicist!? Phlogiston theory, though now long overturned, had much more evidence in support of it than any "theory" (really more wild speculation backed by an attitude only and not evidence) you've presented here. People devote their lives to this stuff newts. Show some damn respect and know when you're out of your league.

Yeah true. That might take a mile high fractional distillation column. You can't get away with pressure swing distillation either because both components are essentially chemically identical.

Well you can make some arguments based on similarity to essential biological elements in your case here. For example, thallium(I) is toxic because it's essentially a potassium cation mimic. There may be some general rule of thumb for metallic ions that I'm not aware of so don't jump to the conclusion that your teacher is wrong. I'll be surprised if there's a strong trend here between groups on the periodic table. Maybe there is some trend within a given group.

Almost impossible. Thats a very important problem in the current state of medicinal chemistry and drug design. En vitro experiments and computational models are always of unpredictable accuracy. Thats why the FDA (food and drug administration in the USA) still requires animal trials for new drug candidates. You have the correct notion that fundamentally this will be related to the electronic structure of the atom/ion/molecule. But physiological effects (distribution in different tissues complex "long range" biochemistry) make a first physics principles understanding of this extremely difficult. Good idea. Won't happen though I'm afraid.

I never said he was a wonderful poster. I said he had potential. iNow, you can't tell me you're not more enlightened than when you began debating on science sites. We've all probably grown immensly as debaters and critical thinkers. I give people the benefit of the doubt if they don't seem malicious. Though I bitch-slap with my left hand, I embrace to transfer the little knowledge I have with my right. I simply saw the right personality traits in superball to allow for growth over time (pre-freak out). Don't really know why. I've seen conversions before I guess. Any trace of agreement here?

All of us hold some unorthodox or even incorrect views iNow, even you. I used to be a bible thumping Christian ten years ago. SFN is a place of education and idea exchange. So bring us your ignorant, foolish, and dumb. We will teach them and we will learn about teaching during the processes.

I hope this is a hacking. Superball was a pretty nice chap and I think had real potential as a contributing member.

That answer is highly dependent on what you're trying to accomplish. I really like GAMESS as it supports all levels of approximation from simple "ball and stick" classical geometry optimization all the way to relativistically corrected molecular orbitals. How much quantum theory do you feel comfortable with? Many modeling programs are easy to use but the trick is understanding enough physics and chemistry intuition to interpret the models effectively.

I am legion.

Statist!? I wasn't aware that SFN was an independent nation now. I assume Cap'n is El Presidente.

Swansont, A small aside. Is the difference between the sum of the masses of the free nucleons and the mass of the bound nucleus referred to as "mass defect" or "mass deficit"? Basically I'm wondering if the two terms are interchangable.

What is to be gained by answering such a question? The predictive value of the theory and validity of the mathematical model are unaffected by any possible answer.

If you ever TRY to watch Fox News...the damn news never comes on. It's just commentary talking head show after commentary talking head show. Sure CNN and NBC have their annoying commentary shows as well, but at least they actually have real news still. I prefer to watch CSPAN our listen to BBC. They're both boring but that's the way it should be.

Definitely. People are now beginning to learn that many reactions are dominated by tunneling phenomena. This includes fast proton transport systems in biological systems, and many ordinary organic chemistry reactions that display kinetics faster than diffusion should allow. I wouldn't really even call tunneling an exotic phenomenon because its really just an elementary consequence of QM. There's already technology based on tunneling like scanning tunneling microscopy and atomic force microscopy. Though I do find it fascinating.

Namely the ability to make GPS systems .

The shape of an electron orbital in a hydrogenic atom comes from the angular momentum. Higher angular momentum quantum numbers make for more complicated orbital shapes with more nodes. You can derive this but perhaps you are not ready for that yet. Wikipedia atomic orbitals for a decent general introduction.

Quite simply no. That ontology you speak of is outside the goals of physics. Physics doesn't care about ontology just like philosophy (evidently) doesn't care about observation.

We already know of many photochemical reactions. And yes, QM does "drive" ALL chemistry.

Got it backwards. A photon's energy is defined by its wavelength. A photon IS electromagnetic radiation also.

Short answer yes. Wait. I mean no...the phrasing has me confused on how to answer. You know what I mean

It doesn't matter what energy is a function of if the units in the equation don't balance. See dimensional analysis. Usually the first topic covered in high school phys/chem. Its all about multiplying and canceling units to get the left and right hand sides of an equation to agree.

Yes. Bond forming events are exothermic. If two unpaired electrons combine or two ions come together (the two ways most bonds are formed), then the system has a achieved a lower energy state than before.