Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:34:50 UTC No. 16458744

(((greedy ((("scientists"))) siphoning off those sweet grant-((("(((bux)))"))) to perpetuate their status quo)))

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:39:10 UTC No. 16458747

https://youtu.be/cPDptc0wUYI

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:42:41 UTC No. 16458753

>>16458742
Everything in that pic is bullshit btw, orbitals don't actually look like that

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:57:07 UTC No. 16458851

Spherical harmonics like these have their own wikipedia page dumbass

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:41:25 UTC No. 16458895

I never got this pic at all. Does it mean electron will stay in those shapes? Why it doesn't have a spherical cloud everywhere? It gets some energy goes to other orbital and then suddenly can only stay in some pinched area??

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:52:57 UTC No. 16458907

>>16458895
it's like this except electrons instead of salt

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:00:42 UTC No. 16458920

>>16458907
This one I understand. it is the boundary conditions the wave reflecting at the edges because of medium discontinuity and interfering. What is the electron reflecting from?

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:03:28 UTC No. 16458927

>>16458920
The potential of the nucleus

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:10:14 UTC No. 16458935

>>16458927
Interesting. Thanks

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:36:01 UTC No. 16458962

>>16458895
>muh heatmap
Kek

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:44:52 UTC No. 16458970

>>16458753
Those are the warped field regions the electron is trapped in bouncing around.

Harmonic oscillations, increased number in a similar vicinity their vibratory interactions alter.

Guitar strings pitch harmonics
Sand on speaker sound cymatics

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 01:44:05 UTC No. 16459159

>>16458895
It's a visual allegory for angular momentum.
Electrons with different angular momenta (s, p, d) perturb in different ways, and bond in different ways. Intuitively, you can think of these funny looking orbitals "squishing" in different ways, with slightly different tensions, and slightly different polarities (same phase attracts, different phase repels) to describe bonding and electron densities.

It's a half-truth: The actual electrons don't separate into dumbbell- and clover-shaped orbitals. They are spherical. But the intuitive model we can build is remarkably accurate for predicting the structure and behavior of molecules off-the-cuff.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 03:10:45 UTC No. 16459241

>>16459159
I always thought the shapes are not depicting the electrons themselves, but akin to the cloud model, those are the contextually forced domains of the electrons boundary of travel in certain contextual particle associations within vicinity, ie x amount of protons and neutrons y amount of electrons.

Once you comprehend the faint comrehension of the mysterious physical EM field and whatever other fields are at play there, you will note that as it is said gravity functions via mass warping spacetime gravity field; proton neutron electron are warping the EM field and so yes dictated to be trapped in orbits.

A hamster running on a wheel is trapped in a hamster wheel orbital.
3 hamsters in a bigger wheel, there are only so many regular patterns they can run without colliding. But the particles spins and the object wholes being pushed and pulled by surroundings, influence whatever the duck the fundamental physical constituent properties of the EM field are at the quark and electron scale, are geometrically shaped into formats the electron cannot help but bop around in its cage;

How the electron rubbing up against the EM cage walls formulated by nucleus, physically forces chemical bonds, I do not currently comprehend

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 03:43:16 UTC No. 16459268

>>16458742
Its easy to produce drawings like that of something which cannot be directly imaged. Just another non-disprovable soience trick. The fakers love trying to escape from the bounds of the scientific method, thats they only thing they're good at, spinning tall tales which they know are outside the bounds of science.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 03:57:46 UTC No. 16459277

>>16459268
>be directly imaged
Break this concept down to its true fundamentals and you'll realize how retarded you sound. Reality is more than the brain's perceptions of light hitting the retina.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 04:31:48 UTC No. 16459293

>>16458742

Everything at the atomic level and smaller is "bullshit" inasmuch as it's very, very abstract and hard to "vizualize", so we make models like these, which while not "literally real", are nonetheless very useful IRL and work for almost all needs, especially for things the size of atoms and molecules.

You can think of them sort of like making balloon animals where each balloon/orbital/"cloud" represents an area around the nucleus where electrons at a given energy level are most likely to be found, the brighter/whiter the color the higher the probability the electron will be in that part of the balloon.

As you might imagine trying to combine two "balloon animals" with different shapes requires you to join them in certain complimentary manners. You can't just smush them any way you like b/c the balloons/electrons will "repel" each other away due to their like charge (-).

You can however get electrons/"air" to go from one "balloon" to another by using various experimental conditions like temp, pressure, etc...

Everything atomic is probabilistic and the "bubbles" are a visual representation of the probability that an electron, which can be used in bonding/chem. rxns. will be located in that region. Not "perfect" but really fooking good.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 05:27:03 UTC No. 16459318

>>16459293
Let's say there is a bond, a nucleus to the left, a nucleus to the right, an electron in the center, what is the electron actually physically doing to disallow the 2 nuclei from drifting away from it

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 06:31:42 UTC No. 16459347

>>16458907
>salt
oh boy you just gave the schizos something entirely new to play with

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 06:48:50 UTC No. 16459368

>>16458895
it's what you get when you fit waves to a spherically symmetric attractive force

pic related shows fitting waves to a 1d string with fixed ends (i.e. a guitar string). these wave solutions are special because they are standing waves. turns out you can write any more complicated non-standing wave on a string using the standing wave solutions. they are kinda like a coordinate system that you can build arbitrary waves out of. notice that each higher order wave has an extra null.

returning to the hydrogen atom, you have to fit waves in the two angular directions and the radial direction. once again, you can find families of standing waves that form a basis that can be used to construct arbitrary waves.

looking at OPs image, you can see the top two orbitals are spherically symmetric, but have different numbers of nulls in the radial direction, kinda like waves on a string but with different boundary conditions. likewise, the more complicated orbitals are adding nulls in the angular direction. in general, you combine spherical harmonics and a radial solution to get the family of standing waves you see in OPs image.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 10:49:05 UTC No. 16459523

>>16459368
Interesting

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 02:15:13 UTC No. 16460433

>>16459241
>How the electron rubbing up against the EM cage walls formulated by nucleus, physically forces chemical bonds, I do not currently comprehend
Someone answer this please: how does the electron physically hold multiple nucleai together

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 02:40:14 UTC No. 16460452

>>16460433
>how does the electron physically hold multiple nucleai together
it doesn't. retard.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 03:04:01 UTC No. 16460466

>>16460452
Pardon my ambiguous semantics and your unhelpful interpretation of them.

Nucleai share electrons and this keeps nucleai in a vicinity together, physically geometrically materially energetically mechanically how does electron do this?

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:39:44 UTC No. 16460685

>>16460466
1/2
first, to be clear, it's better to say how do electrons causing bonding between atoms
the nucleus of an atom is held together by the strong nuclear force, which is an effect of the strong nuclear interaction. the fact that a nucleus is made of positively charged protons that repel each other means the electromagnetic force is actually working to break nuclei apart, but can't over come the strong nuclear force in the vicinity of nuclei.

that being said, all chemistry is due to how electrons bond atoms together. one can model and simulate this from first principles, but it is incredibly complex to do this. instead, you start with solving the hydrogen atom to get a feel for what orbitals exist. then you argue that heavier elements have similar solutions for a single electron. a consequence of QM is the pauli exclusion principle, which says that two electrons can't occupy the same quantum state. if you start adding more than one electron to heavier elements, the electrons fill out the orbitals starting with the lowest energy ones first. (if the pauli exclusion principle didn't hold, electrons would all shake down to the lowest energy orbital, which is spherical, and chem would be very boring). of course, extra electrons spoil the symmetry of the hydrogen-like atom solutions, but you can kinda ignore this and it works well for a lot of elements.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:40:45 UTC No. 16460686

2/2

finally, it's important to note that there are large energy gaps between sets of orbitals whose energy is clustered. it's only the top most orbital energy band that participates in chemistry in a neutral atom, all the other electrons are too tightly bound. you can use the first sets of orbitals for the hydrogen atom to build up the orbitals you see in chemistry books, which visualize the probability of measuring an electron in space around the atom. you hand wave at the fact that outer electrons can be shared between atoms because they are relatively weakly bound to their atoms, and the resulting combination is still electrically neurtral, so it's plausible that bonds form. depending on the strength of the bond/amount of sharing, you get covalent, ionic, or metallic bonding. the bonding occurs where orbitals overlap.

a last detail is that the orbital probability densities are actually the square of the quantum wavefunction, and that when you add orbitals together, you add their wavefunctions. this causes interference. it may be that it looks like when two orbitals overlap, they actually result in anti-bonding because the probability is close to zero (i.e. |1|=1 and |-1|=1, but |1-1|=0).

at this point you memorize what's in your chemistry book because the world is complicated, and rules of thumb are the chemist's bread and butter. but people like physical chemists try to understand stuff from the quantum mechanics perspective, and so we do have a pretty good idea of what's going on and an understanding of the immense complexity of bonding.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 17:24:40 UTC No. 16461128

>>16460685
>>16460686
Will read this later, looks interesting

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 17:34:27 UTC No. 16461137

>>16458742
Spherical harmonics just describe spherically-symmetric waves. They are ubiquitous outside of quantum mechanics. Everything from electromagnetic waves to seismic waves can be described with them. You would have known this if you took a basic undergrad course on partial differential equations.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 17:42:35 UTC No. 16461152

>>16461137
>partial differential equations
What about full or complete differential equations?
Or partial samesies equations?

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:14:18 UTC No. 16461176

>>16459268
amen brother
keep exposing their tricknology

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:16:08 UTC No. 16461177

>>16461152
those are called "ordinary", anon

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:19:02 UTC No. 16461181

what's the difference between a symbol and a referent?

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:51:22 UTC No. 16461237

>>16460685
>positively charged protons that repel each other
The notion of repel and attract, is not in the sense that the electrons body touches the proton and is stuck to it, right, like a moth and a light bulb covered in glue.

But the notion of a field seemed to be needed, it is not solely the bodies which are intrinsically of their extra-sensory ability seeing one another and then stammering or sprinting towads.

(In comes force carriers)(if the reality of the field is needed, if reality needs the field, the reality of the field must not be neglected)

The billiard balls require a table, and likely would behave differently if that table were lined with felt or marble or ice or shag rug.


So particle motions, motion the fields which surround them, moving fields move particles, moving particles move fields, moving fields move particles, moving particles move fields.

Electrons are moved by field, and move field, in such a way that they cannot remain near each other for long.

Likewise to degrees protons and protons.

A single electron interacts with field in such a way, a single proton interacts with field in such a way, that when these bodies and their locally manipulates fields meet in proximity, they click, they lock together.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:53:10 UTC No. 16461239

>>16461181
>what's the difference between a symbol and a referent?
Resolution, detail, accuracy being 1:1 or less

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 19:18:08 UTC No. 16461271

>>16460686
>you hand wave at the fact that outer electrons can be shared between atoms because they are relatively weakly bound to their atoms, and the resulting combination is still electrically neurtral, so it's plausible that bonds form. depending on the strength of the bond/amount of sharing, you get covalent, ionic, or metallic bonding. the bonding occurs where orbitals overlap.
That's the key mysterious invisible beauty imo. Physically how is does atom A field distortion tightly/strongly interlock with atom B field distortion, due to an electron and it's field distortion being in between them.
(Distortion* = manipulation/warping/formulation/formation/formating/function)

What is the center electron doing, that prevents 2 atoms on either side, from drifting apart from one another?

Especially considering that central electron is closer to each atoms other orbital electrons than the nucleai.
Standing wave tractor beam interlocking.

eeePNPNPNeee(e)eeeNPNPNPeee

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 02:25:58 UTC No. 16461678

>>16459318

You would need a pair of electrons to make a "bond". Their respective "clouds" would merge, like quicksilver blobs, to create/fill a given energy level, which would then put the molecule into its lowest natural energy state.

The Electromagnetic Force that keeps an electron around its nucleus is very strong. Think of it as being "welded" to the nucleus on one end with a free hand to grab/interact with other electrons to form bonds. While the new bond can be quite strong, it won't be as strong as the EM bond to the nucleus, so you don't have to worry about them going "flying off" into the aether.

Again, we talk about these things like they're little billiard balls, but they're really just disturbances in various "Fields" that we call a "Nucleus", or a "Neutron", but they aren't "aktchually" true "particles", so much as wobbly globs of energy whose surfaces have a wavy form. Hence, the "waveform" you always hear about in QM.

Chemistry gets a bad wrap, but it's cool once you understand the Top 10 Rules Nature likes to use, then you can figure out and create quite a lot.

Anything smaller than an atom (i.e. "Particle Physics" is not only a misnomer, but half voo-doo, and we know it, but we've been stumped by QM for at least 70 years, but really more like 100 :/

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 03:16:04 UTC No. 16461724

>>16458753
yes they do, retard

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 03:21:01 UTC No. 16461729

>>16461678
>Anything smaller than an atom (i.e. "Particle Physics" is not only a misnomer, but half voo-doo, and we know it, but we've been stumped by QM for at least 70 years, but really more like 100 :/
So what are quarks, gravitons, Higgs particles and all the other shit? Schizo shit scientists made up?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 04:54:05 UTC No. 16461804

>>16461724
No, they don't. They're spherical.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 05:20:18 UTC No. 16461817

>>16461729
Those are "sub-atomic particles" that make up the "Big 3: Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons".

They're just little "packets", "quanta", measurable bits of energy within a field that we call a "particle", but they do have specific mathematical values that can be used very effectively to make predictions and perform reactions, but they're never "perfect" because no matter how well run your experiment "weird shit"/low probability, but no literally impossible, things happen. In many reactions, if you can get 70% of what your "Theoretical Yield" was supposed to be, you're doing pretty good. The other 30% is all the "weird shit" that happens, some of which is expected, some of which we have no clue about.

Many, many famous chemicals and materials were "discovered" entirely by accident and we still don't fully understand how all of this works, but it works well enough, so we use it.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 05:20:58 UTC No. 16461818

>>16461804
yes and they're also cumplex
you can't put everything in a picture
but the picture is fine
pedantic faggot

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 06:12:03 UTC No. 16461844

>>16461818
>and they're also cumplex
Doesn't mean they form pretty dumbbells
>you can't put everything in a picture
Literally proving my point

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 06:16:09 UTC No. 16461845

>>16461844
The picture gives you a perfectly good idea of how the electron shells are structured in space. You're literally proving my point that you're a braindead pedant. You should get a tube that connects your ass with your nose so you can huff your own fumes more efficiently.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 08:22:40 UTC No. 16461901

>>16461844
Notice it's for hydrogen. It actually does form nice pretty distributions like that for the energy levels. It gets more complicated when more electrons are at play in higher elements, let alone molecules.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 08:38:39 UTC No. 16461912

>>16458742
it's a lie invented by big sphere to sell more harmonics.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:11:34 UTC No. 16461961

>>16461845
>how the electron shells are structured in space
They aren't structured any way at all. They're just degenerate spheres.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:34:19 UTC No. 16462475

>>16461678
Google "actual images of atoms" and you will find quite a few extremely impressive images. (In response to your billiard ball comment)

Because electrons don't stick to each other, when you say a pair is needed it's like:

○• •○
○••○
○:○

The electrons are still attracted to nucleus, repulsed from one another, nuclaai repulsed from one another, but the system I geuss finds a balence like that.

The electromagnetic field is one thing.
A photon is another thing (em radiation is another thing?)

So an electron is trapped in an EM bubble made by the nucleus, and made by the electron, their bubbles unite, and once in its harder to break out into the external greater world.

What is the extent of the EM field then inside the nucleus?

Eventually the EM field itself must have components of a size and sort:

You wouldn't say the electron cannot escape the nucleus, because the nucleus is constantly generating photons which constantly bang the electron from beyond the atom and keep it near

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:38:42 UTC No. 16462481

>>16461817
>In many reactions, if you can get 70% of what your "Theoretical Yield" was supposed to be, you're doing pretty good. The other 30% is all the "weird shit" that happens, some of which is expected, some of which
Speaking of colliding a billion protons with a billion protons?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:40:12 UTC No. 16462485

>>16461818
Is there a 3d version of the image?

So where ever there is a color shape, we are to imagine it wrapping around the z axis?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:41:18 UTC No. 16462487

>>16462485
https://www.falstad.com/qm3dosc/

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:42:52 UTC No. 16462489

oops, i meant this one
https://www.falstad.com/qmatom/

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:50:23 UTC No. 16462584

>>16458907
Except all atoms use same orbitals, that have same shapes.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:51:45 UTC No. 16462589

>>16458920
When outside of nucleus, electron needs another particle, which whole earth may be submerged in stream of, to survive and not turn into photon instantly.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 20:30:41 UTC No. 16462638

>>16461961
Yes, they do have spatial structure. Most of them are not spherically symmetric. Another dumb pedantic and wrong comment, amazing.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:01:07 UTC No. 16463071

um, what did they mean by this

https://youtu.be/eCk8aIIEZSg

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:43:22 UTC No. 16463125

>>16462475
>A photon is another thing (em radiation is another thing?)

No, "EM Radiation" is just another word for "Light". There are many wavelengths that we divide into manageable ranges, but they're all part of a continuous spectrum.

All forms of "Light"(visible and non) emit "photons"/packets of light, which have some very, very strange properties. This is where the "weird" of QM starts to come into play, but suffice it to say all forms of Light/EM emit photons, which have a discrete, measurable amount of energy that can be used to make predictions and calculations even though you can't hold "a kilo of photons", per se.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:44:53 UTC No. 16463127

>>16462475
Yes, the pics of atoms are neat and quite round, which proves how good the mathematical models really are. We basically predicted the appearance of atoms 150 before ever actually seeing one.

This is why these models are so enduring. We know they aren't perfect, but they're damn close and work great for anything the size of an atom, or large. Below that things get weirder, the smaller you get.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:50:43 UTC No. 16463130

>>16462475
>What is the extent of the EM field then inside the nucleus?

The "particles" in the nucleus are themselves just wobbly, blobby disturbances in the Higg's Field that gives them mass/definiton. Think of the HF like chocolate covering a soap bubble to make it "solid"/massive.

The forces inside an atom are the "Strong Force"(holds together Quarks that make up Nucleus, Neutons, etc...)(Break this you get an "Atom Bomb"), the "Weak Force"(particle decay/radiation) and the "EM Force"(Lorentz Force/attraction btwn. opp. charged particles like protons and electrons), which combined with Gravity control basically everything.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:53:30 UTC No. 16463131

>>16462475
The field doesn't really have components it just "is". The "field" pervades through all of space-time just waiting to be disturbed by energy. If the right amount of energy is applied a "particle"/point will emerge within the field and take on the properties we observe, like spin, charge, decay, etc...

You'll hear about "Quantum Foam", which is the same thing as the "everywhere all at once field". It's never "totally" calm and inactive. There's always a wee bit of activity, which creates the necessary energy and randomness for "stuff to happen".

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:56:01 UTC No. 16463133

>>16462485
You can buy little model kits to play with that are great for visualizing orbitals and molecules more generally.

Stereo-Chemistry is one of the most important aspects to understand when it comes to nomenclature and synthesis. Once you can truly envision a molecule in your mind you can begin to understand how to go about making, or breaking it as you like.

Form dictates function.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 04:00:21 UTC No. 16463137

>>16462481
The LHC does this sort of thing. The use a stream of "pure protons" (taken from a little tiny bottle of off the shelf hydrogen) and aim them with EXTREME precision right at each other and smash them together head-on.

When they "shatter", all of the bits go flying off on various trajectories based on their mass. Little things far. Big things not so far. They only last for a zillionth of a second, but they are technically measurable. If they find a consistent value(object) popping up time and time again, then they may be able to name it as a "new particle" unto itself, but out of the billions of collisions, only a few will give them anything "interesting" or innovative. It's a numbers game. If you smash zillions of something together, something "fun" is bound to happen eventually, even if it's incredibly improbable. A "one in a million even" would actually happen many, many , many times a day.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 14:22:42 UTC No. 16463553

>>16458895
>Does it mean electron will stay in those shapes?
No, it doesn't "stay in," the electron *is* one of those shapes.
Remember that a particle is a wave—actually a wave-like, continuous, complex-valued, unbounded, mostly-factorizable component of The wave function of the universe. At least as far as we currently know. Simplifying quite a bit, an electron is a standing wave-like vibration of the EM quantum field. Is a wave in any specific point? No, it's everywhere. But it has a definite shape, or amplitude distribution, which is what you see in those pictures.
>Why it doesn't have a spherical cloud everywhere?
Because it has various constraints that force it into specific arrangements. Which creates Chemistry in the first place.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 14:25:24 UTC No. 16463557

>>16463137
For those of you who are wondering, this is not any different from haruspicy. All of these agendas divine the assumed from noise. It is actually a mediocre grift for fleecing tax dollars, but the scale is impressive.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 14:28:00 UTC No. 16463560

>>16463553
Sorry, I meant the electron quantum field, not the EM one, which would be for photons.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:17:59 UTC No. 16463614

>>16463553
Interesting

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:48:07 UTC No. 16464254

>>16458742
>It just be
Write like a normal person.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:20:43 UTC No. 16464990

>>16463125
You didn't comment on how EM field fits in.

-Em field is one thing.
-Photon is another thing (singularity of EM field disturbed)
-Em radiation is another thing (multiple photons)

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:25:55 UTC No. 16465000

>>16463127
But all those images, and I geuss you can say wave function collapse via meausrment: show quite definitude, things like steel and crystal seem quite solid and exact and precise as organization of quantized objects:
It seems inaccurate to assume or believe that prior to that imaging measurment, and just after, all those structured billiard balls start going crazy

In those images there seems to be spherical or dome like quality, cloud, but then smaller line segments and smaller dots connecting, all of what is shown in the image is fully said to be depicting electrons, as electrons always cover and envelope the nucleus?

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:37:08 UTC No. 16465006

>>16463130
How do you know how much EM field is in or is not in the nucleus?

Where does the minutness, of the fundamental heading towards infinitesimal, of the construct of the constituents of the EM field start and end?

Take any volume of space in the universe, there cannot be infinite volume there (see Zeno, or for time being, believe him for these thoughts sake) the photon is not the EM field, a photon or EM radii is the waving of the EM field, but maybe you are right in considering: whatever size the smallest photon is, is the size of the smallest unit of EM field.

Say a ruler is made of inches: say the inches represent the photon, but in order for inches to exist, cm and mm and the atoms of the ruler must exist.

You are saying in the universe is only atoms of the ruler (photons, and there is nothing related to them that is smaller.

What is the smallest possible quanta unit of energy matter than.

Clarity is lost when flip flopping back and forth between fields and quanta, when it suits one, fields do exist fields don't exist fields do exist fields don't exist, paritcles are excitations of fields, fields are excitations of particles, particles move fields, fields move particles, field is real physical existent that exists at every most minima locale of space, no it doesn't, fields are stringy essence and true pure nothing space exists swiss cheesley amidst them.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:38:53 UTC No. 16465008

>>16463131
>The field doesn't really have components it just "is". The "field" pervades through all of space-time just waiting to be disturbed by energy
What is its most fundamental quantitative and qualitative identity, what is its average rest mass per cubic planck volume?

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:45:32 UTC No. 16465016

>>16463553
In other words an electron is not a 1d point, but a discrete fundamentality of elastic volume.

Or, if water had no atoms and was a fundamental substance: nuclaei create cups surrounding themselves in their locations, and the cups can only be filled of x amount of electrons juice

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:52:02 UTC No. 16465027

>>16465008
>what is its average rest mass per cubic planck volume?
And, what is the EM fields average volume per cubic planck volume?

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 16:14:23 UTC No. 16465050

>>16465016
>Or, if water had no atoms and was a fundamental substance: nuclaei create cups surrounding themselves in their locations, and the cups can only be filled of x amount of electrons juice

That doesn't seem accurate because that would imply (considering this as a universal singular fundamental partless electron substance ocean existing from all sides of the universe through to the others) that any time a nucleus without electrons existed anywhere in free space, it would fill its empty em cup with the ever present electron juice:

Is that the observed case? Do free nuclai that are capable of possessing an electron, automatically get one whenever they are free?

Or are there definite discrete countable number of singular electrons floating and flying through space this way and that, and nuclaei and they have to get lucky to precisely encounter?

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:29:50 UTC No. 16465124

>measure electron
>Don't find blobby 3D thing, find electron in one place

Uhhh quantum bros??

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 18:06:24 UTC No. 16465180

jesus christ this thread is giving me brain cancer

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 01:26:13 UTC No. 16465563

To summerize and clarify where we left off:

-Em field is one thing.
-Photon is another thing (singularity of EM field disturbed)
-Em radiation is another thing (multiple photons)
(True or what is false about that?)

If you Google: "actual images of atoms" all of what you are viewing in those super superb exquisite images are, Electrons? (As nucleus is tiny and always covered and bonded by electrons)

What is the EM fields average rest mass per planck volume?
What is the EM fields average volume per planck volume?

When a nucleus is in free space and capable of receiving an electron, does it automatically always instantly get one from the all pervasive ever present electron field?
Or are there x number of discrete small elastic(wavable) volumetric electrons a free e-receivable nucleai must happen to run into to attach?

How do you know how much EM field is in or is not in the nucleus?

Is the EM field composed of anything but photons?

Does the EM field actually physically*(somethingness* as opposed to nothingness) exist at All (planck volumes or slightly below or slightly above) points in space not occupied by other matter?

What is the smallest possible quanta unit of energy/matter?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 01:39:59 UTC No. 16465579

To summerize and clarify where we left off:

-Em field is one thing.
-Photon is another thing (singularity of EM field disturbed)
-Em radiation is another thing (multiple photons)
(True or what is false about that?)

If you Google: "actual images of atoms" all of what you are viewing in those super superb exquisite images are, Electrons? (As nucleus is tiny and always covered and bonded by electrons)

What is the EM fields average rest mass per planck volume?
What is the EM fields average volume per planck volume?

When a nucleus is in free space and capable of receiving an electron, does it automatically always instantly get one from the all pervasive ever present electron field?
Or are there x number of discrete small elastic(wavable) volumetric electrons a free e-receivable nucleai must happen to run into to attach?

How do you know how much EM field is in or is not in the nucleus?
How much EM field is in between the nucleus and electron?

Is the EM field composed of anything but photons?

Does the EM field actually physically*(somethingness* as opposed to nothingness) exist at All (planck volumes or slightly below or slightly above) points in space not occupied by other matter?

What is the smallest possible quanta unit of energy/matter?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 04:52:03 UTC No. 16465728

>>16464990
>The "field" pervades through all of space-time just waiting to be disturbed by energy. If the right amount of energy is applied a "particle"/point will emerge within the field and take on the properties we observe, like spin, charge, decay, etc...

Yes, I did. The "field" is the soapy water and the energy creates the "bubbles".

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 05:00:39 UTC No. 16465731

>>16465000

The "Copenhagen"/Collapse Model is BS and we've known this for ages, but we still don't have any better explanation as to why things go from "wobbly" to "solid" via "observation" alone. It's genuinely one of the great mysteries in the "Field". Get it? The "model", however, works "well enough" to do calculations that are extremely accurate, so it doesn't seem likely that it is 100% wrong either. Again, it's weird.

Not sure what the small dots and lines are, but these images don't represent the electrons themselves, only the regions/clouds around the nucleus where they are most likely to be found at a given energy level (diff. levels can hold diff. numbers of electrons).

These images give you a mental image of where the bonding electrons have the best chance of being found. The black areas mean virtually no electrons there. The brighter the color/white the higher the probability an electron will be there.

Where a bond can form around a Nucleus becomes very, very important when you start combining many, many atoms all of which have their own set of "clouds" of electrons which want to bond with each other using some electrons, while repelling each other with other clouds. This bonding and repulsion is what gives molecules their final shape/conformation after all the electrons have wiggled around and settled in their lowest energy shape.

As electrons bond, these blobs in the pic above, will combine to form "Hybrid Orbitals" with even funkier shapes and properties.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 05:11:32 UTC No. 16465737

>>16465579
Planck units are generally the smallest possible "measurement" we can make, or that has any "meaning" (as best we can tell). Below those values, and form of definition/separation disappears. It's a bit arbitrary, but we have to start somewhere. Obviously, as instruments improve, we may be able to make more accurate measurements, but we're pretty dang sure of the numbers we've got already.

All "Paricles" (Photons, Nuclei, Electrons, Neutrons, etc....) are simply "disturbances in the All-Field" with very specific and fixed mathematical values. (bubbles of a specific fass and volume). As such, photons are composed of the field(Soapy Water), not the other way around.

"Matter" is just "solidified energy" that has become "massive" after passing through the Higgs Field (chocolate coating). If the soapy energy bubble never interacts with the HF, it will never become "manifest".

"Traditionally" you'll hear folks say "the atom is the smallest unit of matter", which is good enough for everyday use, but "technically" Quarks and Leptons are the smallest "things"/"particles"/discrete units of matter we can measure.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:22:59 UTC No. 16465856

>>16465728
>Yes, I did. The "field" is the soapy water and the energy creates the "bubbles".
Take a volume of free space at random (cubic inch, cubic cm, cubic foot, cubic yard, cubic mm, cubic planck volume), that ideally has no hadrons or leptons, take 50 or 50 million or 50 billion of such volumes.

Or maybe I'm most interested in smaller, cubic cm, down towards cubic planck volume:
What percent of such a volume contains EM field?

Is EM field anything other than: current number of photons existing?
If you paused the universe, and pointed to all the photons, and it was duly noted, would you have to point to anything else and say, that's the EM field, or part of the real existing em field, which takes up _______ amount of volume every cubic ______ volume

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 10:02:38 UTC No. 16465888

>>16465856
There is no unique 'master field' that encodes all EM information, because the state of the EM field differs across inertial reference frames. The average photon number is the same for all inertial observers, but the collective quantum state of photons isn't, and it's the quantum state which defines the EM field - A Poisson distribution (picrel) over photon number corresponds to an EM plane wave.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 12:38:30 UTC No. 16465933

>>16465888
Either EM is only discrete wave packet front particles that are thrown like wiggling snakes from star to star

Or

Actual substance exists at actually every point in space and when a charge in a star accelerates it wobbles this substance and the wobble travels from star to star like a water wave travels from left pool side to right.

Which do you think?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 14:06:15 UTC No. 16465997

>>16465856
"The EM All-Field" is everywhere all at once. It is "space", for lack of a better term. There is no way not to have it and it never "fully rests". It's always sort of "fizzing" away like the surface level of a Coke that has little bubbles constantly popping and collapsing on its surface. As such, all space/volume contains "space", so to speak. There is no such thing as a 100% empty Vacuum of pure, empty nothingness. There's always a little something-something going on a the quantum level. The foam never stops foaming.

"The current number of photons" is constantly changing. If you turn on a light bulb, there will be "more photons" in the room than there were when it was dark. However, the EM Field from which they "emerge" remains constant.

Yes, there are other aspects of "The Field" that don't specifically take the form of a "Proton". The EM can manifest as a Proton, Electron, Neutron, etc....there are many "particles" that can be made if you control the energy value.

The EM Field itself has no mass per unit volume. The entire concept of "mass"/solidity is an "emergent property" that "arises" when a specific amount of energy "disturbs" the field, like blowing air into soapy water. Once you put enough air into one place in the water, a bubble will begin to form. If you add more air/energy, the bubble/particle will grow, but you can always add too much, or add it too fast and it will simply go "Pop!", but if you do it just right, the bubble will be surprisingly stable, with measurable properties that can then go off and interact with other bubbles to make still more bubbles and combinations of bubbles.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 15:00:26 UTC No. 16466038

>>16458895
>Does it mean electron will stay in those shapes?
it has a probability to be in one point in those shapes at any time, the less dense the area (in the 3d model) in the shape the less probability there is for the electron to be there
>Why it doesn't have a spherical cloud everywhere?
depends on the specific atom structure, state of the atom
>It gets some energy goes to other orbital and then suddenly can only stay in some pinched area??
energy gained/lost in the atom/electron indeed changes the electron orbital

the wave function describes everything about the electron bound in the atom, including the orbitals which are described by spherical harmonics (the shapes in the OP)

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 17:35:31 UTC No. 16466193

>>16466038
Another anon that sounded like he knew what he was talking about in confident manner of tone and use of sci verbiage just like you, said that those bubbles/orbital/balloons ard not volumes where the wavy point electron might be, but that they were the electron themselves.


Also:
https://youtu.be/eCk8aIIEZSg

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 19:27:10 UTC No. 16466302

>>16466193
I just said what I remember from QM in uni
>but that they were the electron themselves
not only is it wrong, it's impossible due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. giving a defined shape to an electron violates this very basic and core principle of QM.
I didn't watch the video as I'm phone posting but these orbitals are indeed described by solutions to the Schrodinger's equation (the wave equation I mentioned). from this equation we can derive the position probability density of the electron around the nucleus in space, which forms the electron cloud (orbital, the shapes in OP).

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 19:29:49 UTC No. 16466305

>>16458742
yep

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 19:37:14 UTC No. 16466312

>>16458744
Tell us all about the great genius Einstein, Shlomo, who discovered everything, not his goy predecessors such as Planck and Hertz whom the neo-nahtzees say he plagiarized.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 19:37:52 UTC No. 16466313

>>16466302
Google "actual images of atoms" you will see a variety of examples, the nucleus is said to be very very small, and electrons always covering and bonding between them: therefore what you see in those images must be electroness

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 19:45:59 UTC No. 16466324

>>16466313
these "actual images of atoms" don’t show electrons or the nucleus directly. they’re visualizations of probability densities or scattering patterns obtained through methods like scanning tunneling microscopy. they represent orbitals based on interactions rather than direct snapshots

if you've ever been in an advanced lab you'd know the idea of seeing electrons is laughable because we're not there yet technologically speaking

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:22:20 UTC No. 16466363

>>16465997
But I have heard of virtual photons and that they may have rest mass.

Though also:

When you bring South pole bar magnet towards South pole bar magnet and feel resistance, are you feeling the bar magnets shoot photons at one another?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:27:32 UTC No. 16466368

>>16466324
https://phys.org/news/2013-05-first-ever-high-resolution-images-molecule-reforms.amp

https://youtu.be/oSCX78-8-q0

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:33:47 UTC No. 16466381

>>16466324
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/cosmic-log/beauty-snowflakes-magnified-flna6c10403510

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:47:01 UTC No. 16466398

>>16466381
not electrons
>>16466363
it clearly says in the article that the researchers used "noncontact atomic force microscopy" to create images based on the forces between a probe tip and the atomic/molecular structures
these images are reconstructions based on force interactions, not direct visual captures

honestly if you have proof of someone photographing electrons in the traditional sense then you should contact some of the biggest particle physics researchers in your area as that will be absolutely revolutionary
in that case, convincing a random poster like me just seems like a waste of time

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:48:02 UTC No. 16466400

>>16466398
sorry meant to quote >>16466381

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:57:44 UTC No. 16466411

>>16466398
Light isn't the only way to semi-to-more-than-semi accurately sense something.

You could get some ideas and details about the nature of the surfaces of varieties of substance by feeling it with your hands.

No duh the snowflake is not an image of electrons, it was for reference of the awesome beauty and epicness of what atoms, Electrons, their laws, can so purely so definitely create on such small scales.

The point is scientists models molecules far before anywhere near the ability of such techniques and the methods and modes of generating those images corroborate swelly well.

Not seeing the electron, but feeling it. I could tell you a lot about boobs with my eyes closed.

The shapes the super subtle method of detection is feeling, depict the shapes of the electrons, guarding the nucleus, and uniting them in bond

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:59:56 UTC No. 16466416

>>16466411
yeah... so orbitals aren't electrons themselves and you couldn't visually capture them if you tried, any more questions?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:11:27 UTC No. 16466427

>>16466416
>so orbitals aren't electrons themselves and you couldn't visually capture them if you tried, any more questions?
Why do all 'non visual but maybe semi to some degree accurate imaging' reveal volumetric sphericalistic structures?

Whatever instrumental implement probed whatever distant unit up and across over what ever time, touched upon non point like particles, but touched upon...look at the image, a quantity and quality of dimensional breadth

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:14:21 UTC No. 16466431

>>16458753
Define "looks" at that scale.
Also they kinda do even in the naïve interpretation of the word.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:19:28 UTC No. 16466437

>>16466427
>Why do all 'non visual but maybe semi to some degree accurate imaging' reveal volumetric sphericalistic structures?
symmetry of the interaction(s)
I'm going to bed, for any more inquiries feel free to read principles of QM by Shankar, covers everything said in this thread I believe

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 01:38:22 UTC No. 16466668

>>16462584
No, they're not exactly the same. They are variations on a theme though.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 04:20:00 UTC No. 16466788

>>16466363
Yes, when you start talking photons you get into things like "virtual mass" and other oxymorons. They're just imperfect terms used to describe the maths involved to make predictions and calculations, so it's "as if" the photon had mass, so that you can complete the calculations, but you can't hold a "kilo of photons". Again, it's a model, lack of good terminology that can cause misunderstandings. Ultimately, it's the energy/air within a photon that is important not the form/soap bubble that carries it.

Magnatism is a huge part of all of this "EM" stuff and that's why we use terms like "charge" and "polarity", "spin" and "(+/-)" in chemistry, just like we do with magnets. As with real magnets, opposites attract and like charges repel. Indeed, it is the repulsion between electron clouds that ultimately give a molecule its final conformation.

Magnetism also relies on "fields" to interact with surroundings. In this case, "virtual photons" "arise"/"emerge" out of the Magnetic Field which pervades everything at all times, but is usually very weak for most materials.

However, if you have a magnet powerful enough you can use it to move/levitate/realign molecules(MRI) and all sorts of other cool stuff. Look up the National High Magnetics Field Laboratory on YouTube. It's the most powerful magnet in the world and they have all sorts of neat demo vids where they levitate living frogs, mice, and other odd materials, and they're perfectly fine afterwards. Suffice it to say, LOTS of Glowie projects are done there too. If they have "Anti-Grav-Mag-Drives" and shit, that's where they're inventing it.

Using magnetic fields to manipulate the conformation of molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles, like electrons, is very common and can also cause all sorts of new, novel particles, like positrons (opp of an electron) to be emitted, which are used in things like PET scans and MRI.

"Magnets, but how do they work?"

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 00:48:16 UTC No. 16467802

>>16458895
Its a consequence of spherical harmonics; we are free to define which direction is "up".

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 14:21:12 UTC No. 16468284

>>16467802
Yes, but how high is up?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:29:19 UTC No. 16469226

Best organic chem texrbook? Preferably some sort of open access?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:32:42 UTC No. 16469229

>>16469226
Also biochem

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 05:57:50 UTC No. 16469289

>>16469229
Meh, O. Chem. hasn't changed much over the years. They're probably all fine, but I would suggest getting a little click together plastic molecule kit. They're super cheap and look like old Erector Set/Lego toys and will give you a great sense of the 3-D configuration(s) of the moleculues you're studying.

There's virtually no math in the first semester and very little in the second. You don't even really need Calculus to do it.

The hard part is Synthesis, which is just a matter of practice.

Biochem, same thing. Cell biology is very well know and will be the same in every book. If you want Human Biochem for Pre-Med stuff just see what book they're using at the local Uni and go with that. There's a free version of it online somewhere. The book isn't as important as the topics you cover. Focus on Cell Biology and Genetics those are the two big areas.

Anatomy & Physiology (A&P) is a great, fun class too. It's not required for Pre-Med, but if you take 2 semesters, you'll be miles ahead of everyone else and learn tons of cool stuff along the way. It's the foundation of all Medicine and you'll use the stuff you picked up in your intro A&P class until the day you retire. Some schools even have access to cadavers for disection/prosection.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:31:52 UTC No. 16470729

>>16466788
S pole brought to another S pole feel repulsion, is the repulsion you feel: photons?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:15:48 UTC No. 16470761

Google "actual images of atoms"

A device could not use light to detect these, a device had to use physical probing to gather info of structure:

But because electrons always cover up and bond nuclaei, the device touches electrons, and so provides an image of the shapes of electrons it touches.

It does not touch 1d points.

It touches what looks like globules of quicksilver

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 15:02:13 UTC No. 16470814

Looks like an IQ test where you rotate objects in your mind.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 15:43:51 UTC No. 16470863

>>16466368
Look at this image!!
https://phys.org/news/2013-05-first-ever-high-resolution-images-molecule-reforms.amp

Every detail of this is purely a detail of electroness (as well as perhaps the possible fact if these atoms were probed, and electrons touched, they may have been touched towards the nucleus which caused an effect, but regardless, don't know all details of imaging technique)

The classic example of hexagons and touching lines connecting:
What the heck are the lines connecting, and in the middle of the connecting lines are smaller dot balls.

Also if you zoom in around those areas there is a wide stair/stepping like effect.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:52:29 UTC No. 16470975

>>16470863
>https://phys.org/news/2013-05-first-ever-high-resolution-images-molecule-reforms.amp

Those Hexagons are called "Cyclohxane Rings" and/or Benzene Rings (depending on the specific bonding pattern btwn the 6 carbon atoms that form the ring itself).

The "lines" are the bonds btwn carbon atom which are made of pairs of electrons (one near each carbon atom). Their "orbitals" merge/hybridize, like drops of mercury, and the bond is formed.

Depending how many electrons are involved, you can have a single, double or triple bond btw. the carbon atoms, which is depicted if fig. 3A, where you see the bright spot btwn. the rings, which correlates to the triple bond (3 stacked lines) in the corresponding diagram of 3A.

The more electrons that are concentrated in one place, the brighter it appears on the scope.

A single bond is an "-ane", a double is an "-ene" and a triple is an "-yne" when naming organic compounds. They're all use by Carbon to form 4 bonds to achieve its most stable form. It will shed electrons if it has too many and steal electrons if it has too few, but once it has 4 bonds and 6 total e-, it's quite stable and can make diamonds, or crude oil that las millions and billions of years.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:47:53 UTC No. 16471235

>>16470975
So the large shapes, are 6 different atoms, corners being nucleai location, all covered by a dome of electron? Ususlly diagrams show points at corners of hexagram, and then blank empty in the center, this seems to show electron fullness in the center or no?

And the lines with biggish dots in the center that unite the hexagons, the dots and the lines are electron? You saying electrons unite to form bigger, though it's said they repulsed one another?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:52:10 UTC No. 16471243

>>16470975
>The more electrons that are concentrated in one place, the brighter it appears on the scope.
Okay I see that part now, so they are repulsed, yet remain in that location, vibing repulsedly back and forth because once stuck in that location, they are more attracted to nucleus than repulsed by each other, and there is nowhere they can go,
Being stuck in one place with your partner, and repulsed by them, generates energy

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:23:09 UTC No. 16471267

>>16470975
If you look at the image, is it ever possible there are deacrepencies in electron size? Are electrons all truly equal same size, as a quart of water is quite precisely a quart of water, and a 20mm ball bearing can be quite equal to all others.

Are all electrons truly so equal: and what the heck, it stretches out thin to form bonds like that: that's one reason to say it's not a particle, but a volume of elasticity and shapeability. It's malleable in other words, or not a 1d metal point in other words, more like a 4d fast acting gooey liquid

But yeah all around space are just quinguglinquillions of these discrete electron globs zipping about? And nucleai, and they happen to collide and stick?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 02:06:40 UTC No. 16471526

>>16471235
yes, everywhere the line "bends" a carbon atom AND requisite number of Hydrogen atoms to give the Carbon atom 4 bonds is implied, but not seen/drawn in diagrams.

Once Cyclic/Ring compounds form, the electrons sort of "swirl" around the entire molecule above and below the carbon ring, which keeps the ring "flat". You'll sometimes see them drawn as a Hexagon with a circle inside to imply this swirly/cloud of electrons.

Electrons fill shells/orbitals to achieve the lowest energy state possible. Every level has a specific number of e- it can/must hold. The reason e- don't repel when forming a bond is b/c they want/need to pair up to become more stable, like having a person at both ends of a see-saw, rather than one person on one side. If you want to add more e-, you have to start adding them to then next energy level. Conversely, e- are removed from the outermost/"valence" e- shells first. The "rules" for how they fill can be found if you look up the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Electrons don't "really" have a size. Again, we visualize them as "little dots/particles", but the really aren't. No one has even "seen an electron", as such, but we know they're "real" b/c of their "electrical" characteristics, which are easily detected and calculated, but they're just weeeny-tiny little wobbly soap bubbles of mega-tiny-mass at the end of the day.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:58:36 UTC No. 16472302

>>16471526
I was talking to chatgpt last night and we determined a single electron volume is about the size of 3.something 10^73 planck volumes.

Informing that a single electron is relatively huge spatially

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 02:15:16 UTC No. 16472741

>>16472302

..but "virtually no mass". A soap bubble also takes up "relatively large volume/space", but has very little mass, as well.

The volume of the e- can/will change as it makes and breaks bonds, as well. They are never at rest either, but sort of "blink" in and out of "existence" like fireflies, for lack of a better term, around the nucleus, rather than in a planetary orbit like we see in the old Bohr Models.

Think more fizzy, foam bubbles popping and forming than fixed objects with fixed size and mass. Remember they're blobs of runny jell-o, not "billiard balls" with a nice defined shape.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 02:26:21 UTC No. 16472752

>>16472741
Well it's interesting in hexagon atoms arrangement for instance, I think we said this above but still, nuclaei at the points yeah you mentioned benzyne and oxygen there too at points, but the lines themselves in the diagrams themselves refer to the electron itself and imaging of this shows the electron as a line as such.

It is tantalizingly fascinating, that the electrons body stretches out like a line, to make sure it is touching 1 nucleus and another:
That is the very meaning of its bond.
For if it for a moment was not touching one of the nuclaei, would that nucleai then no longer be attached to anything?

Which brings us to the physical mechanistic causal conceptuality: how does the electrons body being present in this proximity, keep node A in place and node C in place, as electron is line B, physically doing what to hold.

There are only so many ways classically, quantumly, magically, imaginationaly, that can be conceived of: object A, object C, field A1, field C1, object B field B1 locking A C A1 C1 in place.

What is the way in which you do so? I've grasped your soap bubbles and I am clean, any other concept?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:58:49 UTC No. 16473421

>>16472752

It's "Benzene" (but then you knew that ;) ; "-yne" implies two triple-bonded carbons, while "-ene" indicates two double-bonded carbons, Hence, BenzENE ) and there are no Oxygen in them, per se, though you can add them, but the name would change.

Electrons don't "touch" the nucleus. They "blip" in/out, off/on around them within the regions/clouds shown in the original diagram. The specific cloud they end up in is a function of their energy level and relative number of other electrons present, along with trying to achieve the most stable/lowest energy configuration possible.

Electron bonds("chemical bonds") store energy, like a rubber band under tension. When the bond breaks, energy(heat) is released.

For a bond to break, something has to cause it to do so. Usually some other compound comes along and "steals" electrons from its neighbor to fill its electron clouds according to Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Taking on e- can make a molecule more, or less stable depending on the status of the other e- in the shells. The atom always wants to have full orbitals, rather than partially filled ones, so they're always trying to find ways to either gain/lose e- as needed to become more stable/lower energy.

An atom can lose one, or all of its e-. Those are called "ions" and simply alter the charge. More e- = More neg. Less e- = Less neg. However, the nucleus, where the protons and neutrons live, will be unaffected. It can even gain/lose neutrons to take on different atomic masses which we call "isotopes", but the proton count defines the element and doesn't change, short of a "nuclear reaction"(fusion or fission).

I think of bonding like a clown making a balloon animal. They can star with a simple sphere, or tube shape and twist, tie, smoosh, smash and join countless other balloons together to create ever more complex objects. The balloons will naturally "repel" each other and find their own best(lowest energy/tension) conformation.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:19:35 UTC No. 16473559

>>16473421
Yeah mixed oxygen with hydrogen
And yne with ene

But okay I may be asking a more fundamental question towards deep physical understanding.

You have your 6 carbon, oh well, in order for it to be carbon it already has to have electron/s?

Well say you have your 6 nuclaei, (for molecule in question you also say you have hydros stick off them which already includes electron but I'm trying to ask deeply about the nature of electron, nature of nucleus, nature of connection.

So no electrons around, you have 6 carbon nuclaei:
They will not stick together, they just flop around, they do not stand rigid at attention and form a shape.

All the sudden you introduce electron/s:
What is the electrons body doing along with local fields, that then allows your 6 carb nucleaei to no longer flop around, but stabley form a network shape?

You are so used to dealing with these things you are jaded. I am an alien in an alien world astonished by my ignorance

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:46:43 UTC No. 16473692

>>16473559
All elements are defined by their number of protons only. The e- and neutrons come and go, but the protons stay the same. If the number of proton changes, which can happen via radioactive decay, inside of stars, atom bombs, etc....then you will have a new element. We've even created some in the lab.

Normally, an atom has a neutral charge b/c the number of e- is the same as the number p+, so they cancel out, but you can add/subtract e- to create "ions". They don't like having a charge and are constantly seeking way so get rid of it by adding/losing e-.

You could have a Carbon atom with no e-, but it would be insanely reactive and (try) to bond with anything and everything around it to get back to an overall neutral charge, or as low as possible.

In Organic chemistry diagrams, it's standard practice to assume ALL carbon atoms have 4 hydrogen atoms bonded to them at all times unless otherwise indicated via the diagram. This is where the term "Hydro-Carbons" comes from.

Once you start ripping off the surrounding Hydrogen atoms, you can then attach new "functional groups" and/or more and more carbons to form very long chains, rings, triangles, all sorts of funky shapes. The shape of these molecules(conformation/stereochemistry), along with their charge, is what gives them their chemical properties. (Form dictates function)

The protons in the nucleus are held together by the Strong Force, which as the name implies, is very, very strong. If/when you can break it, you have created a "fission"/splitting nuclear reaction just like the one used in the Atom Bomb and a tremendous amount of Energy will emerge from a very small mass(m) according to (E=mc^2), where c = the speed of light.

Atoms also have a "Half-life" which is the time it takes for half of a sample to naturally "decay" away into a different element by losing protons, but that can take billions of years sometimes, other elements are so unstable the only "exist" for a few milliseconds in a lab.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:20:45 UTC No. 16474089

>>16473692
Has anyone ever made carbon +4? Does it still require energy to kick off the bonding or would other molecule spontaneously break to satisfy carbon?

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:23:47 UTC No. 16474095

>>16458753
orbitals are just areas where the electrons are more likely to be. they aren't clouds. they are just a way to visualize the most common paths taken by electrons

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 01:14:04 UTC No. 16474149

>>16474095
I kind of wonder how much of modern science is just describing our observations instead of what's actually occurring. We use orbitals because we can't accurately measure the location of the electron or other particle, but does that mean the particle isn't there and is instead a cloud of probability, or just that that is how we observe it to be.

Similarly with other aspects of quantum mechanics like superposition (less tenuous since the double slit experiment exists but you get my point)

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 04:50:15 UTC No. 16474352

>>16474149
Yes, it is based on probability, but that doesn't mean it isn't reliable, or functional. If you think of e- like Blue Whales then you realize it's far more "probably" to find one in the ocean, than on a mountain. Furthermore, it's more probably still that a Blue Whale will be in a particular ocean at a particular time of years(i.e. breeding season). There is no "100% guarantee" of finding one there at that time and place, but you're waaaay more likely to do so than by looking on top of Mt. Everest in the middle of Winter. Again, there is a 1 in a Zillion change one could be up there, so we can't truly say "Never", but there is "an exceedingly low probability of such an event occurring".

The orbitals represent these "regions"/"clouds" of probability where the e- are most likely to be found, and therefore able to bond. As you start clicking more and more atoms together to form complex molecules all sorts of rules come into play as to how they're "most likely" to bond, but there will always be some that don't, or bond in a very low probability manner. After all, we're talking millions and billions of collisions in a rx. so some "improbable" events are going to occur.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 06:10:12 UTC No. 16474406

>>16461901
True - even just bumping up to Helium immediately makes it a problem that needs to be solved approximately and/or computationally.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:09:33 UTC No. 16474480

>>16474149
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1F42P7EHCU yes we can

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:55:07 UTC No. 16474523

>>16474149
>Similarly with other aspects of quantum mechanics like superposition
It's both superposition. The electron wave goes through both slits and interferes with itself and we get the interference pattern on the screen. The electron wave bounces around in the potential of the nucleus and interferes with itself and we get the shapes of the orbitals.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:59:00 UTC No. 16474763

>>16474089

Yes, you can make a +4 Carbon atom (Carbocation), but it would be very unstable and would try to bond with anything and everything around it in an attempt to fill its outer most/"valence" energy shell and achieve 6 total electrons, individually or by sharing them in a bond with another atom(s). Its ability to bond with/break other compounds depends on many, many different factors including what the atoms within that compound are, but it is possible for a molecule to be broken up by a Cation.

Ultimately, all atoms and molecules want to have a full outermost e- shell. They may gain or lose e- to do so, but any "charge" (+/-) represents and imbalance which Nature is constantly trying to equilibrate. Nature seeks balance and neutrality whenever possible because those are "low energy", "more stable", "longer lasting" compounds, rather than being short-lived and highly reactive due to excess charge.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:10:52 UTC No. 16474900

>>16473692
So what you are kind of saying is that earth is a compressed substance that is full to the brim with electrons, so much so that it is rare for nucleai to be on their own

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:25:28 UTC No. 16474912

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_JLCg69yIBc

Remeber the superpositions. We haven't chosen Z direction just yet. It comes after measurement with magnetic field along Z axis.