Is There a Connection Between Nuclear Physics and Chemistry?

[quantumdude]

Can ANYONE show me a diagram of what the sphere packed arrangement of neutrons, and protons, in a Gold atoms nucleous looks like? (If not, then please, retract your assertions, cause there is NO PROOF!...yet...and it is important, obviously more then you seem to realize)

Can ANYONE show me that little invisible fairies are not responsible for determining the electron configuration of an atom? (If not, then don't even think about posting your statements to the contrary, cause there is NO PROOF!...yet...and it is important, obviously more then you seem to realize)

 

[Monique]

...and I have been deleted by Mentors before, when they were wrong
[..]
perhaps it wasn't specifically [Tom], but it has occured...

Let's just come to the conclusion that you've felt wronged in the past and that the comment towards Tom was perhaps inappropriate. I assure you that we are here for the good of the forum and not the other way around. Feedback is always welcome, but not in the form of accusations in an open thread since that won't resolve anything.

Can ANYONE show me a diagram of what the sphere packed arrangement of neutrons, and protons, in a Gold atoms nucleous looks like? (If not, then please, retract your assertions, cause there is NO PROOF!...yet...and it is important, obviously more then you seem to realize)

So exactly how would this arrangement be important in your view, and could you point us to some indirect evidence why you think this is important (can it be found in the periodic table?).

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Mr. Mattson please got to this link, therei you will find out that Deuterium (as heavy water) boils at 101 degrees celsius, NOT the normal 100 degrees C that is the norm for Water, Hence when you add a neutron to the molecule you have CHANGED IT'S CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

I haven't read what's posted, since my last post, BUT I EXPECT an APOLOGY! from BOTH of you, Chroot, and YOU, cause BOTH of you are DEAD WRONG!

http://www.cem.msu.edu/~cem181h/projects/98/deuterium/properties.htm

 

[quantumdude]

Mr. Mattson please got to this link, therei you will find out that Deuterium (as heavy water) boils at 101 degrees celsius, NOT the normal 100 degrees C that is the norm for Water,

Of course it does. I could have told you that. The boiling point of any substance is going to depend on the mass of the constituent molecules, because the very process of boiling involves molecules flying out of solution. This is not news to me, and it doesn't contradict anything I said.

Hence when you add a neutron to the molecule you have CHANGED IT'S CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

Errr...Robin, you need to take a closer look at that website. It clearly states at the top of the page that it is the PHYSICAL PROPERTIES and not the CHEMICAL PROPERTIES that are being discussed.

The difference between PHYSICAL PROPERTIES and CHEMICAL PROPERTIES should be addressed in that chemistry book of yours, somewhere near Chapter One. I suggest you review it, lest you find yourself looking any more foolish here.

I haven't read what's posted, since my last post, BUT I EXPECT an APOLOGY! from BOTH of you, Chroot, and YOU,

Robin, this really is quite laughable. You are grasping at straws to avoid the pain of admitting that you are wrong.

Give it up, man. You must have better things to do.

 

[Monique]

Radioactivity (and changes in the nucleus) are also not considered chemistry. They are also nuclear physics. Chemistry is the study of how electrons behave around nuclei that are assumed stable.

- Warren

According to the dictionary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chemistry

Nuclear chemistry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Nuclear chemistry is a subfield of chemistry dealing with radioactivity, nuclear processes and nuclear properties. It may be divided into the following categories:

*Radiochemistry deals with the use of radioactivity to study ordinary chemical reactions
*The application of techniques from chemistry to study nuclear reactions such as fission and fusion — see also nuclear physics.
*Isotopic chemistry deals with the effect of nuclear mass on chemical reactions and the properties of compounds.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Uhmm...isn't 'heat of formation' a chemical property? not a physical one...

And after the discussion of the science, follows your persistent insult of me...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

http://folk.uio.no/ponniahv/activity/structural/dh.html

Says them, the evidence speaks, not me...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Heres another one for you, Dictionary.com Heat of Formation

Have a nice day... I'm , your not...

 

[Monique]

Ok, according to my chemistry textbook:

Chapter 1.1 Doing Chemistry:
Chemistry is the investigation of the composition, structure, and properties of matter and of the reaction by which one form of matter may be produced from or converted into other forms.

Chapter 1.4 Chemical and Physical properties:
Chemical property: the capacity of one type of matter to change into another type (or its inability to do so).
Physical property: a characteristic that does not involve a change in the composition of matter. Familiar examples of physical properties include mass, volume, length, color, hardness, the temperature at which a substance melts or boils, and electrical conductivity.

Boiling point would be a physical property, heat of formation a chemical property.

 

[quantumdude]

Heres another one for you, Dictionary.com Heat of Formation

Where is the connection between nuclear structure and heat of formation?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Sure, when you take carbon @ 6 and add 2 more you have successfully created oxygen @ 8...ergo you have changed literally the physical composure of an atom (physical properties) and come out with a completely different atom with completely different chemical properties.

All of the elemental chemicals (elements) are simply composures of the same nuclear elements (Electron/Proton/Neutron) thus, there differing behaviours/properties...nuclear physics is the bedrock beginning of Chemistry, as the study of the properties of the elements of Nature, and their interactions...

Have a nice , well, day...

 

[Monique]

So oxygen has two more protons than carbon, but does that really change the chemical properties? The effective nuclear charge is changed, thus extra electrons are reqruited, which is the thing that changes the chemical properties. It also changes the radius of the molecule, which changes the way it interacts with other molecules. But it is not the proton itself that undergoes the interaction, it is mediated through the electrons.

Nuclear chemistry is in fact on the borderline between physics and chemistry (which every textbook will say), so I think there really is no resolution to this matter unless clear distinctions are made what you want to prove.

 

[quantumdude]

Sure, when you take carbon @ 6 and add 2 more you have successfully created oxygen @ 8...ergo you have changed literally the physical composure of an atom (physical properties) and come out with a completely different atom with completely different chemical properties.

What you say here is in agreement with what I have been saying all along. I have told you more than once that, in order to explain chemical properties, we need only treat the nucleus as a structureless mass m with charge Ze. Change m or Z, and you will undoubtedly change the substance.

But this still does not establish a connection between chemistry and nuclear structure, or "spatial ordering of the nucleus" as you call it. The very fact that we can account for everything by treating the nuclear parameters m and Z without regard to structure is enough to conclude that no such connection exists.

 

[pallidin]

Well, MRP does have a point with respect to classification of event phenomena of positive ions. A positive ion expresses attraction from one or more nuclear protons, technically classifying the event as nucleonic.

 

[Nereid]

One of the radioactive decay processes is electron capture, which involves an orbital electron being 'captured' by a proton in the nucleus and forming a neutron.

However, it's not 'chemistry', but 'nuclear physics', and has nothing to do with the stability of the proton

Robin, I've read this thread, and I must say that Tom, Monique and chroot have it right - in the field of study we call 'chemistry', all that matters (re the nucleus) is that it has x mass and y charge. Note that isotopes of the same element have different masses, and this does have some interesting implications (e.g. D₂O has a different melting and boiling point from H₂O, and you already noted; ³He behaves very differently when cooled to near 0K than ⁴He), however this has essentially no importance in chemistry (the only exception may be the chemistry of deuterated compounds, where H is replaced by D).

Wrt the original question - is the proton stable? - this is a question best addressed (IMHO) by nuclear physicists, not chemists. Why?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Well heat of formation deals with reacting elements together, H and O making H₂O and if when you add a neutron to the H to make D then react it to make D₂O and you take clear notation of the fact that the Heat of formation has changed you know that the addition of the Neutron has changed the chemical reactivity of the previously known as H, hence the bonding energy should be different, and if you know you have changed the chemical reactivity of something you have changed it's chemical properties, slightly...

How the heck could you possibly get all of those positive charges together, (an Iron atom) in that small a space, unless the neutrons were cancelling out the repulsions of the protons, hence we would know that, a neutron, attached to a proton, inside a Hydrogen atom (now a deuteron{sp?}) should/would reduce the protons effect upon the electron, changes the binding energy...a chemical property...

Sorry...but, is that clear enough?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Neried sorry, new thread title, as courtesy of Chroot...

Nuclear physics is equal to chemistry as that is where Chemistry starts, when the nucleons, protons/neutrons/electrons assemble to make all of the over 110 types of atoms/chemicals/elements that exist.

As it is believed that all that is required is the valence shell electron count, then if I charge a carbon atom, such that it achieves eight valence shell electrons, shouldn't I then have oxygen? cause...Nope! I don't...to make oxygen, I'd need one helium nucleous...

 

[chroot]

How the heck could you possibly get all of those positive charges together, (an Iron atom) in that small a space, unless the neutrons were cancelling out the repulsions of the protons, hence we would know that, a neutron, attached to a proton, inside a Hydrogen atom (now a deuteron{sp?}) should/would reduce the protons effect upon the electron, changes the binding energy...a chemical property...

You seem to be missing entirely knowledge of the strong force, the force that holds nucleons together in a nucleus.

- Warren

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You seem to be missing entirely knowledge of the strong force, the force that holds nucleons together in a nucleus.

- Warren

Uhmmm not in the least little bit, and it needs overcome a massive amount of repulsion from the protons themselves...right? where is it coming from? which particle has that ability?

(the reason I ask you, is so that we both stay "on the same page")

 

[chroot]

Particles made out of quarks feel the strong force. The nucleons do indeed need to overcome a large Coulomb repulsion; hence the moniker "strong."

- Warren

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So you can press together fifty five protons? into a mass? compact mass? can you? (Not a chance! not without Neutrons in there!)

 

[chroot]

You could, in fact, press 55 protons together. The resulting nucleus would not be stable, however, and would quickly decay.

- Warren

edit: I meant protons, but really it doesn't matter either way.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Uhmmm I had said/asked P-R-O-T-O-N-S...not neutrons, "positive charges repelling' and how to overcome that, remember?

 

[chroot]

And I answered, "the strong force," remember?

- Warren

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(Yikes!) Yes! it is right there! and I can read! (God's Grace!) and you dodged the answer!...so, what else is new?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So Mr. Mattson, and Warren, in the link I had provided in which Mr. Mattson came back at me with it being the "Physical properties" of Deuterium, I have taken the liesure of copieing the sites words, and have emboldened (And Italicised the "Physical properties" colored the Chemical properties) the appropriate parts, so's as to ensure that this little 'melee' of your creation, gets proper solution, based upon the Most accurately Known Scienctific responce/answer...not anyones/someones ego...

The quote is taken from http://www.cem.msu.edu/~cem181h/projects/98/deuterium/properties.htm
(Home page accreditation) <<This page was created for CEM 181H at Michigan State University in the Fall of 1998, taught by Dr. Marcos Dantus>>

When two deuterium ions bond with one oxygen ion, deuterium oxide, heavy water, is formed. It looks the same as and tastes similar to regular water, but some of it's characteristics are different. Heavy water is different from regular water in physical properties. Heavy water boils at 101.41 degrees Celsius and freezes at 3.79 degrees Celsius. The heat capacity, heat of fusion, heat of vaporization, and entropy of deuterium oxide are all higher than the values for water. Heavy water is also more viscous than water is. Deuterium oxide is not as good of a solvent as water is either. Deuterium will form stronger bonds than hydrogen will.

As you too can read, the CHEMICAL PROPERTIES of Hydrogen/Water have changed because of the addition of a nucleon to the system, THE ISOTOPE that is deuterium HAS DIFFERENT CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Then HYDROGEN...

I would expect both of you, once again, to apologize to me, as both of you are Dead Wrong!...the Scientific evidence PROVES it...me? I'm just the guy you two like to insult, probably out of, what? fear?

BTW in reality I sincerely doubt that either of you can admit to the error, nor do I really have an expectation of any kind of apology from either of you, don't think that there is enough space, in you, to accommodate humilty.

Thanks for your time...hope you have learned something!

 

[chroot]

(Yikes!) Yes! it is right there! and I can read! (God's Grace!) and you dodged the answer!...so, what else is new?

What question did I dodge?

- Warren

 

[chroot]

And Robin, the one line "Deuterium will form stronger bonds than hydrogen will" is definitely news to me. If indeed that's true, then you've shown us one example of a nuclear property directly affecting a chemical property. Well done! You've taught me something.

I will agree that there are a handful of special situations in which the nucleus is involved in an atom's chemistry (Nereid, for example, explained at least one, and you've apparently found a reference for another). For the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of chemical interactions, however, the details of the nucleus are entirely unimportant to the atom's chemistry. That's the point Tom and I were trying to make to you. Just because the nucleus affects the chemistry in a handful of special circumstances doesn't mean you should generalize that it's always important -- that's what we objected to in the first place.

- Warren

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

To your last post, uhmmm so far, still stuff to come you know, it is not all solved yet, and it you were to be the Author of ToE would you not need to know how the valence shells get structured in the first place...I need/needed to know that...

The question was "can you pack 55 protons into a small compact mass" which I already said, couldn't be done, not without neutrons, as the repulsive forces (of the Protons) would blow it apart, long before you got even close to 55...

As for your last line, in you post above me, would you like me to blow that crap outa the water too, "you objected to it"? HUH?? what? attacked! and outrightly denied it! those are the right words...and I did NOT generalize it, I simply stated that the Nuclear arangement Made a difference to the particles chemical properties, cause that is what makes it the element it is! Chemical element! you know like the ones that they study in Astrophysics the study of the Fussion of Chemical elements, in Nuclear reactions, in Stellar bodies...It's all connected, that is matter!

 

[chroot]

Er uh... I have no idea what point you were trying to make in that last post. The total charge and mass of the nucleus is important for chemistry, as has been said; rarely are any other details important. You seem to have just discovered the single contrary example a few minutes ago, so it would be intellectually dishonest of you to say you were right all along.

Besides, Tom has pointed out several times that the mass of the nucleus is certainly important to chemistry, and deuterium differs from protium notably in mass. I don't believe the neutron itself makes any difference other than contributing mass. So, if you really want to continue to argue technicalities, I could argue that your argument has already been said in this thread. You did teach me something about deuterium, however, so I thought I would be nice and thank you for it. You seem to still be upset. Oh, well.

And I answered your 55 proton question quite adequately. I'm not sure what your problem is.

- Warren

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP) I don't believe the neutron itself makes any difference other than contributing mass. (SNoP)

WOW, seems you would want to start this all over agian, on neutrons this time...

BTW the thread, as you now seem willing to admit, did, and does, belong in Physics, as we are not developing anything new in theory, here. (other then the theroy of your characters)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP)And I answered your 55 proton question quite adequately. I'm not sure what your problem is. (SNIP)

WHERE??

 

[chroot]

Okay, can you show me some evidence that the neutron affects deuterium's chemical bonds in any way except by virtue of its added mass?

And no, virtually all of this thread has been your proselytizing your many misunderstandings of atomic phenomena. It clearly belongs here, in TD.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

WHERE??

I said, many times, that if you were to squash 55 protons together closely enough, they would bind together due to the strong force. The resulting nucleus would very quickly decay, however.

- Warren

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You could, in fact, press 55 Originally written a neutrons! protons Now changed edited to protons! together. The resulting nucleus would not be stable, however, and would quickly decay.

- Warren

edit: I meant protons, but really it doesn't matter either way.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha do I love that reason for the edit line it "doesn't matter either way" WOW! just WOW!



You really are better viewed/read as a comedian when you rant (crap) like that!