Quantum Reconciliation

[Super Eddy]

Traditional quantum mechanics seems to come up short in respect to predicting chemical reactions and looking at the forces and motions of atoms and molecules. We need a way to reconcile physics and chemistry.

[davidivad]

have you considered quantum chemistry?

[physica]

There's biophysics and physical chemistry. Below is a link of a university giving statistical thermodynamics information under their chemistry department.

 

http://www.chem.arizona.edu/~salzmanr/480b/statt01/statt01.html

 

Below is a link to another university giving an introduction to quantum chemistry

 

http://www.msg.ameslab.gov/tutorials/quantumintro.pdf

 

Don't worry other people have realised this and are working on it.

[Enthalpy]

It's the consensus that quantum mechanics explains chemical reactions. Though, solving for every electron in a reaction is too difficult, and requires several layers of intermediate models. Could you formulate it more in detail?

[Super Eddy]

There's biophysics and physical chemistry. Below is a link of a university giving statistical thermodynamics information under their chemistry department.

 

http://www.chem.arizona.edu/~salzmanr/480b/statt01/statt01.html

 

Below is a link to another university giving an introduction to quantum chemistry

 

http://www.msg.ameslab.gov/tutorials/quantumintro.pdf

 

Don't worry other people have realised this and are working on it.

Quantum Chemistry seems like a good topic to check out (thank you). I'm concerned with the quantum mechanical model itself in that, with respect to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Schrodinger Wave equation is a probabilistic solution. Instead, maybe seek an equation that is deterministic but when constrained can yield position in one sense and energy in another sense.

 

Have you read "Hacking Matter" by Wil McCarthy? Artificial atoms are very sensitive to the dimensions of the box that contains them and there seems to be no ability to make exact duplicates of each box. This is not a problem for natural atoms but it shows the severe dependence on the atom's potential well to determine the characteristic of the element in question.

[Strange]

You might be interested in the sort of methods used in computational chemistry (which attempt to do just what you are talking about):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_chemistry

[physica]

 

 

Have you read "Hacking Matter" by Wil McCarthy? Artificial atoms are very sensitive to the dimensions of the box that contains them and there seems to be no ability to make exact duplicates of each box. This is not a problem for natural atoms but it shows the severe dependence on the atom's potential well to determine the characteristic of the element in question.

 

I have read this. It has to be noted that Wil McCarthy is a science fiction writer. Programmable matter has been a concept since the 1990s but McCarthy has coined another term for it called welstone. He owns a company called RavenBrick and his book seems to be more of a self promotional tool for that company more than anything else, especially chapter 7. I'm not saying that he should be completely ignored but also be a little reserved when reading his work.

 

 

 

 

I'm concerned with the quantum mechanical model itself in that, with respect to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Schrodinger Wave equation is a probabilistic solution. Instead, maybe seek an equation that is deterministic but when constrained can yield position in one sense and energy in another sense.

 

This is very vague. You have to be more detailed about your concerns. The Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic.

 

As for a broader term below is a link about theoretical chemistry.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_chemistry

[Super Eddy]

I will check out Quantum Chemistry and Computational Chemistry (thank you). Let me be more specific with the questions I have:

 

1) The Schrodinger wave equation was developed and solved before digital computers were available. Is it complete and would a better solution be nonlinear?

 

2) It is a fact that Krypton and Xenon can react with Florine yet the Quantum Mechanics equations say that this would be impossible. How can this be reconciled?

 

3) It is said that chemical bonds share electrons with each atom. Shouldn't this be better expressed by saying that a new wave function exists?

 

4) Can inter-molecular forces be better thought of as wave functions instead of van der Waals forces?

 

 

[swansont]

 

1) The Schrodinger wave equation was developed and solved before digital computers were available. Is it complete and would a better solution be nonlinear?

 

 

It was solved for very simple systems for which a closed-form solution exists, e.g. the basic structure of hydrogen or other single-electron atoms. Complicated systems require numerical methods, and this is where computers allow for very good approximate solutions.

[physica]

3) It is said that chemical bonds share electrons with each atom. Shouldn't this be better expressed by saying that a new wave function exists?

 

4) Can inter-molecular forces be better thought of as wave functions instead of van der Waals forces?

 

This has been done. In 1927 Walter Heitler determined how to use Schrödinger's wave equation to show how two hydrogen atom wavefunctions join together. This is the basis of valence bond theory. I think you're view is slanted because of practicality. Standard chemistry books don't broadcast this (as far as i know) because of practicalities. Lets look at mechanics. let's say we want to model a snooker ball. We can mathematically treat it as a wave function as it would make sense. We had to do this in class. it worked out that the wave length of the snooker ball is smaller than an atom. what does this tell us? It tells us that a naked eye will not see the wave function and we will also never be able to diffract a snooker ball by putting it through a slit as the slit has to be the same as the wavelength and you can't get a snooker ball through a slit that's smaller than an atom. Treating the snooker ball as a wave/particle mathematically makes sense but does nothing to the analysis. If you're trying to win a game of snooker it's best just to treat the balls as particles otherwise you over complicate the analysis for no extra benefit. now there is some debate on where the particle wave duality stops or if it stops at all but I hope you appreciate the analogy for it's display of practicality. Now I am no expert of chemistry but I bet there are many cases were expressing wave functions will simply over complicate with no extra benefit.

 

 

 

 

 

2) It is a fact that Krypton and Xenon can react with Florine yet the Quantum Mechanics equations say that this would be impossible. How can this be reconciled?

 

 

 

chances are that if you've read this people are working on it