Re: My New Website

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 06/25/04 

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:56:29 +0200

Y.Porat wrote:
> Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cbfac9$iee$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
>
>>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:
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>Of 1.9Å, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----------
>>>i am still not Gods friend at least not as close to him as you
>>>are ..... (;-)
>>
>>What has God got to do with the fact that you violate the basic
>>scientific approach?
>
> --------------
> thats exactly who i consider you a friend of God
> you have a monopoly about the 'scintific approach'.......

You are not making any sense. One does not need to be a friend
of God to know how science has to be done.

[snip]

> because i can be as well quite a good abuser...

Yes, I already know that you like the word "Nazi".

[snip]

>>>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
>>
>>Yepp, that's still clear, though without any physical basis, but let's
>>go on.
>
> ---------------
> i am interested in that quantitative analysis it seems to me very important
> may be you can do it with a compuer program easyer
> i thing it is to find the distance between the centroid
> and one of the sides of the tetraheder (later multiplied by 2
> and then find the distnace between cenrtoid and ...
> one of the 'faces of the tetraheder' later multiply be 2
> and compair them
> all that can be in asuming the length between centroid
> and one uppex' (what i call 'the arm lemngh' of the carbon elecreon)
> all those distances as a function of that 'electron lenght'
> *taken as 1.0000* and later
> it cal all be multiplyed by a wanted factor.(to get the
> experimantal compatibility.

Both Lothar and me already did the calculation. It's not very hard,
one does not need a computer for it.

If one denotes the "electron length" with "x", then the results are:
* distance for a double bond: 2*x/sqrt(3)
* distance for a triple bond: 2*x/3.

>>>now the point is that you can do it not only
>>>qualitatively
>>>you can do it *quantitatively*
>>
>>Yes, it's trivial geometry, the "centroids" e.g. have a distance of 2/3
>>of the arm length.
>
> ----------
> as above etc etc etc i wold not all it too trivial

Then you show that you have a problem with fairly easy geometry.

> but shold lead to very acurate and interesting results.

See the results given above, in the post I made yesterday, and in the
very same post by Lothar you reply to here.

> not trivial results and comclusions at all...

The results 2*x/sqrt(3) and 2*x/3 look quite trivial to me.

[snip]

>>>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, it's 2/sqrt{3}*2Å = 2.3Å.
>
> -----------
> while you atach *two of the 4 points of the tetraheder
> not just one! i mean the double bond

For the double bond, with an electron length of 2A, one gets 2.3A,
exactly as Lothar said above.

>>>and the tripple bond (while 3 legs are touching)
>>>as something like 1.42 A
>>
>>Wrong, it's 2/3*2Å = 1.33Å.
>
> on what base??

Geometry.

The distance of the center of a tetrahedron to one of its faces
it 1/3 of the arm (electron) length (that's quite simple geometry).
Hence the distance between the centers in a triple bond is 2/3 of
the electron length.

> if you are right i can multiply my 'electron length' by a factor
> to get itanyway not a too far difference

Nice. Then you get the triple bond between carbon atoms right. What,
then, about all the other elements? Do you simply choose the angles
there so that it comes out right?

> at least not for a pioneering scintist...

For a "pioneering" scientist, the biggest goal should be that
his results agree with the observations without having to introduce
a lot of free parameters (like different angles for every element).

> btw i still dint tell you that the electron in my model
> is not 'all the story'! there are 'medium prbitals' as well
> sometines more and sometimwes less and they are much shoter
> than the electron length (may be something like 1/10 of electron
> lenght
> just keep in memory from whom you first time heared about
> mediating orbitals
> (for me as a known crackpot those are the orbitals that are
> resop-onsible for the x ray radiation ....

Explain Moseley's law.

If you repeat your claim that Moseley's law is inaccurate for heavy
elements, please provide a reference for that claim (hint: it is wrong).

> ie elctrons do the em visible
> x ray don by the 'mediums'

Then why does Moseley's law give the right results for the X-ray radiation?

> and nuclear orbitals do the gama rays

Finally something I can agree with.

> just 3 major kinds belong to 3 different kinds of orbilas
> sounds interesting ???

No, sounds inconsistent with the evidence.

[snip]

> just to show that our real matter is not a 'cloud of probability'
> the clouds are only in physicist that are more matemathicians
> than physicists.

The experiments measuring charge density show that there *are* such clouds.

[snip]

>>>is that the real connection of them is *mostly*
>>>not on that line but sideways- so a longer way than
>>>the shortest line
>>>except of course in cases that there is
>>>only a one 'valence' elecrton bond like that of say water.
>>>or others with valence one.
>>
>>So such "single bonds" are always 4Å?
>
> --------------
> i am not sure at all tha 'single bonds' are dealy
> point bonds

"dealy"???

Well, how *do* single bonds look like, in your opinion?

> another surprise fo you (may be)
> my findings are that even a bond between
> say sodioum and chlorine is actuallymade .... not just
> by one line of connection!!

There is no bond between sodium and chlorine, merely electrostatic
attraction.

[snip]

>>>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'
>>>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.
>>
>>Yeah, sure...
>>
>>And did you find any experimental evidence for this electron
>>hell-sending process?
>
> --------
> didnt deal with it

Then why do you act as if that were a fact?

[snip]

>>That means, we do not even agree about the tetrahedrons in diamond.
>>Could you now explain, how you arrange your spiders to form the diamond
>>lattice?
>
> -----------
> even the 'pure atom' arangement is not trivial
> now you whant to entangle me with all those 'spider legs' ???!!! (:-)

Well, it's your model - so why can't you explain it?

[snip]

>>>i didnt see the absolute success of qm even to describe
>>>and calculate all the elements of the periodic table
>>>it seems that you are not exactly 'in' those problems
>>>qm didnt go further than the irom element
>>
>>It's _you_ who is way "out" of these problems. Just how old are your
>>references? People are doing fully relativistic calculations on funny
>>stuff like Uranium hexaflouride and it _works_, cf. e.g. J. Chem. Phys.
>>_104_, 1012 (1996).
>
> -----------
> may God help them for waisting their precious time
> gambling on the wrong horse......

Care to explain why the calculations give results agreeing with
the observations?

> i suspect it is just mumbling anfd hand waving.

The results they obtain agree with the observations. How is
that "hand waving"?

> they simply ride on the wrong horse
> '*their shell mode* is wrong for heavy atoms

Unsupported assertion, as usual.

>>>and the excuse for it is ' not enough 'claculation pwer'
>>>to our enem super computers.
>>
>>So what (if it were true)? That wouldn't mean that the method was wrong,
>>but demanding.
>
> is is not the computers falt it si a physics concept fault
> just benging thier heads in a concret wall..

Unsupported assertion.

[snip]

>>Look who's talking. You don't even get diamond's density correctly from
>>your model.
>
> we will see about it later

When you finally will have looked up how X-ray scattering actually works?

[snip]

>>>good for your naivity!
>>>hiow do you detect an electron positin ?
>>
>>For measuring the (time averaged) electron density, I don't need to know
>>each electron's position.
>
> may God help you

Why?

[snip]

>>But complicated enough for you to goof up the involved simple calculations.
>>--------------
>
> you say simple i dont.

Could you please explain your formula on page 129? Why on earth
should the distance be sqrt((E/2)^2 + (E/2)^2) ?

[snip]

>>>not on their endless compounds
>>>do we speak about the same thing ??
>>>please give me examples of those 14 structures
>>
>>Is your lazyness unlimited?
>
> ---------
> yess i am 66 remember and retired....

That is no excuse for making assertions without supporting them,
and for expecting other people to spoon-feed you the relevant
knowledge.

[snip]

>>>can you see there all the 14 ??
>>
>>Nope, two are missing and stuff different from fcc, bcc and hcp is
>>mostly exotic (and with more than one atom in the primitve unit cell).
>>Here we go:
>>
>>
>>simple cubic: \alpha-Polonium
>>fcc: Copper
>>bcc: Tungsten
>>
>>hexagonal: Berylium (hcp actually)
>>rhombohedral: \alpha-Arsenic
>>
>>simple tetragonal: \beta-Neptunium
>>body-centered tetragonal: Indium
>>
>>simple orthorhombic: -
>>face-centered orthorhombic: \alpha-Sulfur
>>body-centered orthorhombic: -
>>base-centered orthorhombic: \alpha-Gallium
>>
>>simple monoclinic: \alpha-Plutonium
>>base-centered monoclinic: \beta-Plutonium
>>
>>triclinic: Californium
>
> --------------
> Hey californium?
> do you have enough material to make a crystal and analise it?

Apparently yes. Or do you think they just guessed this?

> 2 all those structures youmentioned above
> are you sure it is not one basic structure
> with *minor* differeces ??? too minor

I gave you a link where these structures are shown. Do they look
like "one basic structure with minor differences" to you?

Bye,
Bjoern

Quantcast