mississippichem

I usually use | \psi \rangle to get [math] | \psi \rangle [/math]. Along similar lines you can use \langle \phi | \psi \rangle giving [math] \langle \phi | \psi \rangle [/math] when you need an inner product. It's cumbersome, but the words "rangle" and "langle" make me smile.

I've just been informed that SFN rule number 1.2.3.78.54 paragraph 12 clause 3 prohibits the utillization of multiple hookers in tandem. Also, how does one do bubble tags? I'm feeling left out here.

Nothing more true has ever been posted here.

Yes please post pictures. I would have expected the larger particle size colloid to be more opaque from experience and theory. Can you tell the details on how the density was measured? Do you have a access to a dynamic light scattering machine to accurately measure particle size?

Yes, that is normal. The larger particle size should make the solution more opaque. Remember that these beads are not soluble in the water. If not for the SDS surfractant, you would have just a bunch of particles at the bottom of your beaker. As far as the appearance goes, think about scatteting and its relation to particle size.

Moved to the speculations sub-forum. Non-mainstream ideas and personal hypotheses belong here.

What does it mean to be a Bronsted or Arrenhius acid? Ammonia has a lone pair of electrons about the nitrogen atom. How might that lone pair tend to interact with a proton? I'm asking you these questions so you can think about the problem instead of merely receiving a pontificated answer. Is this homework?

I say the more we flood the internet with good scientific information and writings, the less likely people are to be duped by all the psuedoscientific nonsense out there. Even if it's already being done you would still be contributing a small part to that effort. I think a good analogy might be: Just because some billionaire is giving millions to a charity doesn't mean that your ten dollar contribution doesn't aid the cause.

A-wal, That's just the thing, I can't really critique your theory point by point because of the way it is written. As written, I don't even know if you are referring to rest mass or relativistic mass! I don't know what definition of acceleration you are using either. The proper way to go about this would be for you to show, mathematically, how the relativistic 4-acceleration (the derivative of the 4-velocity with respect to proper time) as measured from a momentarily comoving reference frame (look that up, it has a precise meaning) has the same derivative with respect to mass (of some concocted definition I suppose) as it does with respect to energy (whether or not you mean kinetic energy or total energy will be dependent on how you define mass here). It's really even hard for me to write this as it doesn't really make sense. Another example of your propensity for imprecision is found in your "magnet" analogy. Are we talking about being close enough to the manget to approximate it as a monopole? If not, the vector field has a non-zero curl so your analogy is broken. My knowledge of relativity is not what is on trial here. I am not a physicist, but I know enough about math and relativity to knlw that your idea is incorrect. See all the posts in the thread. There are physicists who are disagreeing with you.

An example (chemical in nature, but IMO relevant): The long range structure of proteins are [sometimes] easily measurable but often not computable. It's basically an n-body problem with a few hundred to a few thousand atoms moving in the electric potential (dipole, Van der Waals, etc.) of the solvent and the other atoms. Chemistry is rife with measurable but not computable properties often due to the sheer number of bodies in a quantum or even semi-classical electro-kinematics/electro-statics problem. Sorry that it's a chemical example. It's what I know and no one else has responded besides you.

This problem has been remedied. If that was you, Capn or Dave, thanks for that. Is it working for you now Klaynos?

Your MO diagrams for the two hexacyano-iron complexes are correct except for not showing the occupied pi states on the cyano ligands . I honestly have no idea how you would construct an MO diagram for the whole mixed oxidation state complex. What do you expect the nature of the Fe-Fe bond to be?

I guess you never learned the math or the LaTeX. That post is so full of misconceptions that I really don't know where to start. Have you ever even read a book on SR? I'm not insulting you here intentionally, just trying to point out that you clearly don't understand, even heuristically, the way in which SR is formulated. I imagine any further discussion will not be fruitful until you stop hand waving and pony up the math.

Look up the phase diagram for water. Under a certain pressure liquid water can't exist. So as was said above, it will boil.Here on Earth where pressure is relatively constant (when compared to pressures throughout space and other planets). We don't as often get to see that pressure controls the phase of a substance just like temperature. Look up the phase diagram for water. Under a certain pressure liquid water can't exist. So as was said above, it will boil.Here on Earth where pressure is relatively constant (when compared to pressures throughout space and other planets). We don't as often get to see that pressure controls the phase of a substance just like temperature.

I support the notion of letting rep-votes be visible for a trial period. If it takes the train off the rails it can always be undone.

The menu button that leads to things like "new content" and "messenger" has ceased to function on the mobile version of the site. Worked a minute ago though.

Catalysis of several organic chemical reactions and the calibration, with respect to particle size, of various light scatteting spectrometers such as DLS (dynamic light scatteting), Mie scatteting, and Zeta tracking come to mind. Also, I've heard of glassy carbon electrodes being doped with silver nanoparticles though whether or not they would still be considered nanoparticles once incorporated into an amorphous carbon lattice is up for debate. I've never seen these kind of electrodes so take thsat with a grain of [salt] AgCl.

I really hope they have electrospray ionization on that mass spec. I shan't be excited by some lame elemental analysis (think "arsenate" bacteria scandal).

Well, you can't really draw one in the same sense that you can draw a tree or a house. You can plot the plot the position wavefunction of an electron though just like you can plot any other mathematical function. Just remember though that the wavefunction is technically an outdated concept still useful in certain applications. Quantum field theory does away with the wavefunction and replaces it with other more "advanced" mathematical objects. Wavefunctions still serve as useful tools though, especially when considering the bound states of electrons in atoms. Google atomic orbitals and I'm sure you'll be able to find some nice plots of the wavefunctions for electrons in a hydrogen atom.

I think timo already explained this pretty well, but I'll attempt a rephrase in the hope that it helps you in some way. You can just think of the derivative loosely as a generalization of slope to continuous functions. The concept of slope really only applies to straight lines, y=mx+b where "m" is the slope. The derivative just takes that concept and applies it to a larger class of functions. To really understand it you'll need a pretty good sense of what a limit is. Without limits all you can really do is hand wave. Do you understand that the derivative is really just a limit of the difference quotient as the change in the function goes to zero? Some people benefit from a more rigorous treatment of mathematics. It seems counter-intuitive but sometimes going a little deeper can pay off great returns in terms of more mature understanding.

I think that Enthalpy is pointing out that the wave function describing the electron (remember this is just a sort of probability distribution) spans all of the space between the nucleus and the rest of the universe. Given, the probability of finding an s electron (one with no angular momentum) some far distance away from the nucleus is pretty small but still non-zero. However the probability of finding an electron very near the nucleus is actually very high. You can't really think of a atom properly as a "solar system like" model. Subatomic particles and even whole atoms themselves don't behave like tiny classical specks or balls. There is no sound analogy in my opinion. The only way to truly describe an electron in an atom is to do the math.

I say keep it in group I. In the ground state a hydrogen atom has one electron in a 1s orbital. All the group I elements and hydrogen have the valence configuration ns1. All the halogens have the valence configuration ns2np5. Ultimately it doesn't really matter as nature doesn't seem to care how we arbitrarily classify things. Another element whose position could be disputed is helium. In the ground state it has no p-orbitals occupied though it is often grouped on the far right with the p6 noble gases.

Agreed. Moved to the relativity sub-forum.

I don't know anyone personally. But I've recently read a paper at arXiv about spontaneous symmetry breaking in the structure of B80 cages. The paper was actually published in 2007 so I can't believe I've missed it until recently but I find it quite interesting as this is the kind of chemistry that I'm most into. Link Gopakumar G.; Nguyen M.T.; Caulemans A.; arXiv.org 2007 Well, our work was more from a methodology standpoint than actual application though the funding was through the US Army and the work was done with future dielectric applications in mind. I'm sure the army had a specific application in mind because they tend to not give out money just based on "wow that's cool" ideas. Many kinds of electronics utilize dielectric materials for some thing or another. We used DMA (look it up, really cool technique) to measure things like dielectric storage and loss on materials that incorporated some of the functionalized endohedral metallo-fullerenes as monomers in copolymers (I'm not really at liberty to talk about the other monomers, additives in the materials, or the details about the nature of the encapsulated metal species ) so I'm sure that some of the applications the army had in mind had something to do with dielectric storage or fancy capacitors.

I think its pretty safe to say that one should trust government officials over an online poll where n=3 and the question was worded as a very leading question heavily biased to one side. I think it's also safe to say you are not a fan of valid statistical methods.