Re: My New Website
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 06/24/04
- Next message: Harry: "Re: Radius of electron"
- Previous message: Harry: "Re: Radius of electron"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: My New Website"
- Next in thread: Lothar Brendel: "Re: My New Website"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:35:21 +0200
Y.Porat wrote:
> Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cbc4s2$50t$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
>
>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>>Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cba84o$nje$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>so please Bjoern and Lothar
>>>>>try to undrstyand my folowing claimes and explanation.
>>>>>th4 bottom lne of it is :
>>>>>all those diffrent distances between atoms can be explained
>>>>>with *just one electron bond length*!!
>>>>
>>>>Of 1.9Å, right?
>>>
>>>----------------
>>>actually i would not bet that this is the 'last' acurate result
>>>because i myself got different results from different analysis
>>
>>For a scientist, getting different results for the same quantity means
>>that his/her theory is _wrong_.
>
> -----------
> i am still not Gods friend at least not as close to him as you
> are ..... (;-)
What is the relevance of this remark here???
>>>of something more than 2 A as well so it is just my first 'tials'
>>>'shots in some cloudy aire' i dont know the nice English term for it
>>>may be 'groping'?
>>
>>"Tapping in the dark"?
>
> yess thats th e way to do pioneering scince and not to be just
> a parrot....
However, as long as one is "tapping in the dark", one shouldn't keep
claiming that one's ideas can explain all about that topic!!!!! As you
keep doing!!!!!
>>>>So how do you explain e.g. copper with a nearest neighbor (NN) distance
>>>>of 2.55Å?
>>>
>>>see my explanation to Bjorn about the double and tripple bonds
>>>of Carbon
>>
>>That was incomprehensible.
>
> because now *you are too lazty * to make youself a simple
> irin model of two tetraheders
> it not lazy take two iron wires entangle them at their middle,
> spread the rest edges to the 4 directions and you have
> thje carbon model
> than make another on
> now approach tem together so that only two legs will touch
> see the distance between the centroids
> now go on and approach 3 'legs'from each tetraheder to
> touch
> you will see the centroids coming even close
> now the point is that you can do it not only
> qualitatively
> you can do it *quantitatively*
Yes. I did it quantitatively. You did, too. Your calculation was wrong.
You still haven't told me why the distance should be
d = sqrt(E/2)^2 + (E/2)^2),
BTW.
> as i guess in our modern situation you can do it by a computer
> program (say autocad)
Not necessary. Quite elementary geometry. See my post.
> i diod it the primitive way of hand calculation
And fooled it up completely.
> but the poit is that there is nothing like doing it with your
> own fingers- it gets enshrined in memory the strongest way.
> (3d memory)
> so you will get that if you take a ;legs length for say
> 2 A
> you wilol get the distance between the centroids
> in the 'double bond' as 1.5 A
Wrong. As I pointed out, the distance is two times the
height of the triangle in my figure here:
<http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~bfeuerba/triangle.jpg>
The result is:
d = 2 * x/sqrt(3),
and that is approx. 1.15 * x. For x = 2 A, you get
d = 2.3 A.
Not 1.5 A.
> and the tripple bond (while 3 legs are touching)
> as something like 1.42 A
Wrong again.
That distance is, as I pointed out, 2 * a/sqrt(24) (where
a is the side length of the tetrahedron now, not the side length
of the cubic cell), which gives together with x = sqrt(6) * a / 4:
d = 2 x / 3,
i.e. d = 1.33 A for x = 2 A.
Could you please try learning some elementary geometry?
> no need for quantum mechanics and no smantum one
> just simple 3d stereometry.
Right. Which you fooled up.
> btw you are right by your later remark that
> the distance between atoms is on the shortest line
> you should guess my mind that i was mwaning to say
> is that the real connection of them is *mostly*
> not on that line but sideways- so a longer way than
> the shortest line
We can't read your mind. Be a bit more careful with what
you write, please.
> except of course in cases that there is
> only a one 'valence' elecrton bond like that of say water.
> or others with valence one.
> even then my findigs are that the real connection point
> is not exactly on the shrtest line
> there is always a 'break in agle' ie not 180 deg
> if you 'go all along the *ereal* connection line'
Not your "findings". Your *assertions*.
> i have even an explanation to it:
> if it were a real atrahgit line the electrons
> from the two atoms would collide at the connection point
> and 'send to hell' each other.
Huh? How should they do that?
> ie the somewhat break angle at connection point ie
> they are not on a 180 deg line but say 150 deg
Could you please stop the "say" and give some specific
numbers to which you stand, for a change?
> hope i made myself clear
> enables them to connect and not to colide
>
> btw thats what i found not only in electron connections
> but al along even nuclear connections
> it is compa tible all alond my nuclear model as well.
And again, not "find", but "assert".
[snip]
>>>it is done sideways
>>>immagine metaphoricallt\y two siders catching each's legs
>>>(or two crabs
>>>the 'legs' are spread longer sideways than the direct line beteween
>>>themselves
>>
>>Err, where do you place the atoms in this picture? Only on the spiders
>>bodies or also on their "hands"?
>
> actually the atoms are defined as 'the spider *and * their 'legs'
> but the distance is as you sated- between the nucli.
> the legs are sort of 'invisible' qm smears them
> a vey nice way to run away from 5he real thing
Err, this "smearing" is indeed observed in experiments which
measure the electron density.
> but once you do the model i suggested
> you realize in your fingers what Einstein sayed:
> 'God didnt paly the dice'
Einstein was shown to be wrong on this. Live with it.
> it is only 'smartguys methematiciance' that are friends
> of God who paly the dice
Huh?
> (noting meaning you-
> no offence at you Lothar you sems to have some less
> than a 100 percent self confidence, thats why you find some
> interest to hear some starge ideas from me !...)
In contrast, you have 200 percent self confidence...
> eistein though that Gods creation is clear crystal
> acurate and uneqiuvocal
> so who am i do boubt it ???(:-)
Who are you to doubt the findings and opinions of several
hundreds of thousands of physicists?
Is everyone beside Einstein simply a parrot?
>>>and if not complicated enough sometimes it is two electrons
>>>one from each side that do the connection
>>>and sometimes only one is contributing electrons (the other-
>>>lost it during bonding
>>>so it is not as simple as to fraze it in one simple elegant
>>>single law sure not one matemathic fromula (at least not at this
>>>stage of knowledge).
>>
>>Not with _your_ state of knowlegde. As I alraedy explained, nowadays the
>>geometric and electronic properties of crystals can be _calculated_,
>>starting from quantum mechanics, without plugging in any distance.
>
> ----------------
> calculated!!
Yes, indeed.
> it seems like too much hand waiving
The results which are obtained agree with the experiments. How is that
hand waving?
> i didnt see the absolute success of qm even to describe
> and calculate all the elements of the periodic table
What do you mean when you say "describe and calculate an element"?
The spectra of all the elements are well-known and can indeed be
calculated by QM, AFAIK.
> it seems that you are not exactly 'in' those problems
> qm didnt go further than the irom element
You still rely on something which someone (Franz, IIRC) told you
long ago and which you totally misunderstood.
> and the excuse for it is ' not enough 'claculation pwer'
> to our enem super computers.
No, the "excuse" is: we don't need it.
> you are not aware about the over self estimation of qm.
Says the one who doesn't understand QM.
> iow not aware about how much *not achieved* by qm.
And you are not aware of how much *was* achieved by QM.
> thos epeole are asertive pompous people who know how to sell
> themselves in a much higher price than theyt realy worth.
> (not completely clean from crookism!!)
ROTFL!!!!!
Projection,, I would say.
[snip]
>>>my guess is that the electron is made of many subparticles
>>
>>This _guess_ of yours is contradicted by experimental findings. But I
>>know,you consider your guess out of the blue as much more trustworthy
>>than any comparison with nature.
>
> dont be too sure of youself
> it is a lot of 'intrpretatins of observations'
> rather than 'direct observations'
Please explain how the observations fit your model of the electron.
> and a lot of mistakes are lurking on that way.
Please explain what mistakes were made.
> lots of 'taking for granted' that *leads* to those results.
Please explain what was taken for granted.
>>>>Now, the electron density can be _measured_! And alas, nothing of this
>>>>sort was ever observed, in metals there are no "arms" at all and in
>>>>covalent crystals the orbitals are aligned with the shortest path
>>>>between atoms.
>>>
>>>-----------
>>>may be just in simple cases like the oxygen Hydrogen
>>>but how can you measure the separation location of say
>>>the 3 connections of carbon?
>>
>>One can measure the electron density within a _crystal_.
>
> -------------
> good for your naivity!
Says the one who in the very next sentence shows that he didn't
understand what was really said.
> hiow do you detect an electron positin ?
Err, he talked about the *density* (the charge density), not about
positions.
> by bombarding it by electrons ??!!!
Electron densities can also be measured e.g. by X-ray scattering.
> or may be with gama rays (;_)?
Yes, for example.
> or may be even by light waves?
No. The resolution would be too bad.
> wvwn light wayvws might deviate the electrron positions ??
Huh??? "wvwn"????? "deviate the positions"?????
> and how do you detect the exact trjectories of say
> a tripple bond of say the carbon element??
What trajectories?????
> what is your 'google for that?
Huh?????
[snip]
>>>while it is known that trhe Carbon electrons are separated
>>>to the famous tetraheder ( 3D !!)109 deg
>>>do you 'see' there with your instruments one bunch
>>>or 3 separeated 'beams' ??
>>
>>Nobody ever observed such "3 separated beams".
>
> -----------
> because we dont have the tools for it.
No, because no one says that there should be ones.
We *have* tools to measure the charge density. The results contradict you.
> only by the power of thinking we can do it (at this stage)
Wrong.
>>>lets study it before spreading definit declarations.
>>
>>Go ahead!
>
> --------
> doing my poor best....
Well, what have you studied so far?
>>>what is the overall number of latice for
>>>all the elements of the periodic table
>>>it is one of the former questions that i raised
>>>in former articles
>>
>>Did you? And you didn't get an answer? Gosh, the internet is full of the
>>answer to this question: There are 14 bravais lattices.
>
> i waas speaking *only about the 92 **pure element latice**!!
There are no "92 pure element lattices". What on earth do you mean?
The 14 bravais lattices which Lothar Brendel mentioned are all the
lattices which are *possible* in nature (due to geometry).
> not on their endless compounds
No one mentioned any compounds here. What on earth are you talking about?
> do we speak about the same thing ??
Yes.
> please give me examples of those 14 structures
They can be found in any book on solid state physics. Or simply Google
for the term. This gives e.g. this result:
<http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/chem/course/studhand/bravais.html>
These 14 unit cells give all the lattices which are possible in nature.
> associasted to the specific elements of the periodic table.
> can you see there all the 14 ??
Yes.
>>>i think the answer for it is meaninfull
>>
>>Before you conjecture that 14 is due to the ten commandments of Moses
>>plus the 4 arms of the tetrahedrons: The origin for this number is
>>already _known_. And, listen carefully, it is not a small subset of all
>>possible lattices, selected wisely by nature. Instead there _cannot_ be
>>more lattices than these 14.
>
> concrete 14 examples please.
Too lazy for a simple Google search yet again, I see.
What was that above about "we have to study it first"? Why didn't you
follow your own advice?
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: Harry: "Re: Radius of electron"
- Previous message: Harry: "Re: Radius of electron"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: My New Website"
- Next in thread: Lothar Brendel: "Re: My New Website"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
