mississippichem

Q is not a state function and is also a scalar quantity. Thats why [math] \Delta Q [/math] is not expressed in the definition of entropy but [math]dQ[/math] is.

Maybe but you've got some serious symmetry considerations to account for.

No, you don't understand my understanding. Zombie thread? Read any first year physics or chemistry textbook, you will find the evidence for entropy to be overwhelming. Ranting about entropy not being a physical quantity is irrelevant. Entropy is an intrinsic property of nature, this can be concluded mathematically and by simple observation. Gaussian distrubution is largely conceptual and is only perfectly realized as N reaches infinity which never happens. Is Gaussian distrubution ridiculous? Please explain how the rates of gas phase reactions always seem to increase when the calculated [math] \Delta S [/math] is postive.

I like to think of like this: If you were to put your hand over a liquid, assuming your hand was extremely sensitive, you would feel more force being exerted on your hand over a liquid with higher vapor pressure. This leads to the conlusion that vapor pressure is proportional to the rate in which particles excape from the liquid bulk into the vapor phase. Look up the equation for rate of effusion (not diffusion). Rate of effusion only applies to gases but the function correlates roughly with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation for vapor pressure.

This from "The Theory" blog: Polypeptides are not quanta. Polypeptides are macro-molecular polymers. This is like elementary school chemistry. What evidence do you have that poly-peptides are "quantized"? The premise is so flawed that it's really hard to even discuss. Unless you can answer these few questions, you have no eveidence to even begin discussing things of this nature. -Do "aminogyres" have half integer or whole integer spin? -Is the calculated deBroglie wavelength of a polypeptide (molecular weights in the 100,000s) greater than that of a planck length? -Where is your kinetic analysis? In chemistry, we prove mechanisms with isotopic labeling, varying concentrations of reactants, real time 2D spectroscopy, varying reactants through congeneric series, etc. You can't really make a claim about the origin of DNA, or any chemical species for that matter unless you have very detailed, quantitative data. This is in fact so difficult that mechanisms can't even really be proven, incorrect mechanisms can be discarded though, and simple process of elimination usually gives the likely mechanism. If the question is the biochemical origin of DNA, then your gonna need hella evidence from the phylogenic tree and taxonomy as well as some very impressive kinetic analysis. -You're trying to answer some of the big questions of physics, biology, and chemistry without a single reaction scheme? Feynam Diagram? Pretty microscopy pictures even? I think I speak for many in the scientific community when I say that you need some serious data and quantitative reasoning to back up these tall assertions. No philosophical argument about the irrelevance of math in theories will work either. Let us see the numbers. -P.S. What does "creatodestructive" mean, or "attractorepulsive" these are oxymorons.

I want to see an N so big that we have to worry about gravitational implosion.

What do you mean by an unstable molecular weight? Some molecules are unstable on thermodynamic, electronic, or geometric grounds. Conditions such as heat, pH, pressure, local electrostatic potential or the presence of certain frequencies of EM radiation cause molecules to be unstable in certain situations. I've never seen a compound that was unstable directly as a result of high molecular weight. Some proteins have molecular weights in the 100,000's and are stable in neutral solution. [ce] SiO_2 [/ce] exist in a infinite covalent lattice and can be said to have very very high molecular weights depending on if you count unit cells outside crystal grain boundaries.

Occam is sharpening his razor, and will soon return to give you a clean shave sir.

Copper ions are blue in aqueous solution. Copper (II) in aqueous solution takes on the form [ce] [Cu(H_2 O)_6 ]^{2+} [/ce]. This coordination complex is a member of the [ce] O_h [/ce] point group which corresponds to a specific set of symmetry operations and therefore a specific charcter table matrix. One must then use a table of microstates [set of possible total quantum numbers for a given electronic configuration] to decide which transitions are spin allowed and which transitions are Laporte allowed. Some of the forbidden transitions still occur through a process known as vibronic coupling [cascades through quantized vibrational levels that allow transitions to happen without a change in parity]. After all that..one must use a Tanabe-Sugano diagram to approximate the wavelengths of the allowed transitions, of which for members of the [ce] O_h [/ce] point group there are many. In this specific case, a Tanabe-Sugano diagram is not neccessary because there are no electron-electron repulsions. This case holds true for the [ce] d^1, d^9, d^0 , d^{10} [/ce] cases. In order to calculate this correctly though, you have to take into Crystal Field Theory; much of which is summed up in the following diagram

Yeah, even though I consider myself quite conservative, I must admit that John Stewart's liberal antics are hilarious when directed at conservatives. If you can't laugh at yourself, there's no reason to laugh at all

I miss good episodes of the Daily Show. Somehow it's just not as funny when a liberal comedian critiques a liberal president. Comedy is always funnier when it plays devils advocate. Seriously, do I miss Bush? I miss those unemployment numbers, and I miss the previous level of capital gains tax. I believe the history books will be kind to GW within the next ten or so years. I wasn't a big fan of the Iraq war, but mainly because it stole vital resources from our more legitimate mission in Afganistan. Bush wasn't great, but he really wasn't that bad. He was a liberal republican in my mind (see medicare part A-Z ) who got branded as a blood thirsty war hawk because of his Texas accent. If anything, I feel he wasn't conservative enough (especially to be so hated by so many liberals). His tax cuts were nice and did a lot to stir Wall Street but they really weren't deep enough to leave a lasting impact on the tax code or the peoples' expectations of the tax code.

No, the offspring will never be a different species than the parent. I think you misunderstand evolution. Evolution is the result of compounded mutations over the course of very long time periods. If parent A has mutation x [and the mutation isn't deadly or an inhibition to reproduction] and parent B also has mutation x, then it is possible that offspring A' will have mutaion x. Beneficial mutations, especially the ones that give a reproductive advantage, tend to be passed on through generations while detrimental mutations tend to disappear for obvious reasons. Species is defined as a reproductivley isolated population [along with other factors], however this definition is totally arbitrary. After compounding a few billion mutations, sometimes another species is produced. ex. Two human parents who don't express Down Syndrome as a phenotype can have a child with Down Syndrome. Down Syndrome is a mutation that occurs somewhere between gametes [sperm/egg] and an embroyo resulting in an extra chromosome (47), diploid # + 1. Down Syndrome is not a different species, but there are obvious differences in the traits expressed. That is just the change from one generation. Now plug in about 400 million generations and you might be getting something quite different than the first generation. -Biologists: please correct anything I wrote that was worded incorrectly. Please excuse a chemist with only a reasonable knowledge of biology.

Whether or not there is anything to be offered for not believing in a deity is irrelevant. Many would say one should only be concerned with what is true [other motivations shouldn't matter]. I'll go a step further and say that the truth is irrelevant, and one should only be concerned with what is demonstrable. I don't care whether God exists or not; he has not provided sufficient evidece for my skeptical mind to comprehend his existence. Try not to think of it as belief in atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a supreme deity and in my case the supernatural all together. The only thing atheists truly believe in is the power of deductive logic.

Not to be a stickler, but [math] \sigma [/math] ABO have a significantly higher absolute value of enthalpy change [as compared to the non-bonding orbitals] than the corresponding bonding orbitals. I guess it just depends on how you define significant, and to what degree you're willing to approximate. Sorry, just thought I should point that out so people don't get confused. People often times skip over the word "approximation". I've been guilty myself.

Any religion that celebrities in hollywood endorse is probably about as realistic as hollywood movie physics see: Speed, Terminator 3, Mission Impossible [Tom Cruise]

I'll save you some time. Chirality is the chemical term for "handedness". This is a measure of the ability of a non-centrosymmetric molecule to rotate a plane of polarized light. In organic chermistry we use the formalisms R and S to say right and left handed respectivley. Biochemistry uses D and L, Inorganic chemistry uses [math]\Delta[/math] and [math]\Lambda[/math].

I won't flat out give you an answer, and there are many. Here's a hint to one of them: Cut the molecule at the double bond, then think phosphorus. That will lead you to a first step in your retrosynthesis. Edit: forgot to add last sentence

We could synthesize bio-molecules of the opposite chirality [i.e. D versus L amino acids], but it is expensive and cumbersome as we can't use natural products as a major feedstock in many cases. Stereo-isomerization of amino-acids is not fun; multi-step process, requires strict control of conditions to avoid side reactions. I think our best bet would be to genetically engineer a micro organism to do the chemical dirty work for us by consuming achiral nutrients and producing "unnaturally chiral" biochemicals

The city should have rebuilt the WTC twice as high as before, to show that we are not weak. Then they could have let them build the Mosque/Community Center nearby to show that we Americans are in fact a strong, tolerant, and freedom loving people. It would send a message to terrorist groups the world over: If you push us down, we will stand again. We will fight for our freedom, but will not sink to your level. Whether any of this is true is up for debate, but I reckon that would send a positive message of strength and fairness to our enemy.

Not sure about all the specifics of this particular reaction [step 2], but I think I know what principle is at play here. [ce] 2NO + O_2 -> 2NO_2[/ce] molecular oxygen (in the [math]T_1 [/math] ground state) is a paramagnetic diradical. NO is a radical as well. This is probably a radical process where the desired product is kinetically favored over an alternative product that is more thermodynamically favored.

The sum of the reaction enthalpies for the three steps leads to an overall enthalpy of about -1181kJ/mol. So the reaction is exothermic overall. All three steps are independently exothermic as well. Increasing T for a reaction can increase yield, particularly if te transformnation is an equilibrium process. All steps of the Ostwald process are practically irreversible, except for the last step (if carried out in air): [ce]4NO_2(g) + O_2(g) + 2H_2 O(l) -> 4HNO_3(aq)[/ce] This is the fuming nitric acid equilibrium

Just took it myself, lets see some numbers once n gets big.

I'm not sure about the German pyro-aluminum, but the aluminum has to be finely divided, and must be mixed with the potassium perchlorate in the correct stoichiometric amount. I gotta run to work, but I'll edit this post this afternoon and show you what I mean.

This is a science forum. We are followers of the philosophy of empiricism (Look that up). Empiricism is basically the philosophy of only accepting concepts with quantifiable or logically provable foundations. Academia is how we pass our empiricism from one generation to another. Yes, much of the information that ends up in textbooks comes from academia. Those who work in academia, for the most part, have proven themselves to be honest keepers of knowledge and empericism. They have proven this through years of dedicated study and research. Many are under-paid and work in academia because it is their "labour of love". All this to say: don't state that you are against the opinion of academia; when "academia" represents a variety of opinions that all fall under the banner of mainsream, empirical, quantifiable, testable, and observable scientific reasoning. Science doesn't use wisdom, we use deductive reasoning, logic, and mathematics. These things are not provable or testable, thats why they are not considered to be in the realm of science. Not because we don't want them to be, because by definition things like art are the result of human emotion and feelings. They are subjective by nature. Don't think I'm trying to be belligerent. I'm just trying to give a concise anecdote on why these things are not scientific. I apologize in advance if I come across as harsh.

[math]k= \frac{k_b T}{h} e^\frac{ -\Delta G_a }{RT} [/math] Forgot about the Erying equation, similar to the Arrenhius but gives activation energy in terms of Gibb's energy. Answered my own question, woops.