|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
puzzle; Benzene
On Jun 6, 2:37*pm, john wrote:
On Jun 6, 9:25*am, Robert Higgins wrote: On Jun 6, 11:12*am, john wrote: On Jun 6, 8:58*am, Robert Higgins wrote: On Jun 6, 10:44*am, john wrote: On Jun 6, 8:18*am, PD wrote: On Jun 6, 12:00*am, franklinhu wrote: On Jun 3, 6:34*am, john wrote: On Jun 2, 10:50*am, (Michael Moroney) wrote: ...and your evidence that all those spinny coins have anything whatsoever to do with a real benzene molecule is what? They are classical pathways put together in the form of a six-member ring which is planar and has six others each sharing with one member of the ring and also in the same plane and has the capacity to contain 30 electrons. What do you want? Show me a better explanation of how it works. Try this on for size.... See this web page:http://franklinhu.com/atmdetail2.html You might want to do a Google Images search for "benzene STM" and update your references. At the bottom you will see an actual STM picture of benzene. Now what is strange here is that we see 3 little lumps poking up in this picture, not 6 lumps arrayed in a planar arrangement as is commonly shown and appears to be assumed by your model. Any reasonable model of benzene should be able to explain this. http://franklinhu.com/benzenestm.jpg My own cubic atomic model explains this as the 3 hydrogen atoms sticking up above the carbon ring plane and the remaining 3 hydrogen atoms point downward below the carbon plane. Note that this particular arrangment is still perfectly symmettric with regards to the resonance data used to establish the location of the hydrogen atoms. All the resonance data tells us is that each of the hydrogens have the same resonance. This could mean planar, but it could also mean 3 up and 3 down - as long as it is symettric about the carbon ring, the resonances will all come out the same. I have shown this in the picture of benzene in my cubic atomic model as: http://franklinhu.com/benzene.jpg The shape of the carbon atom allows three of it's "arms" to link together to form a ring with one of its arms pointed inward forming a double bond. Notice that only the red/black cubes are touching eachother to form an attractive bond. The remaining carbon arm is then used to hold the hydrogen atom. The requirement of only red/black cubes touching forces it to have 3 up hydrogens and 3 down hydrogens. This model easily and intuitively explains why this forms a "double" bond and why we see the 3 bumps in the STM picture of benzene.. Can your model match that result? To see a full explanation of this cubic atomic model which I think does a much better job of explaining the structure of benzene, see: http://franklinhu.com/buildatm.htm -fhubenzene- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The three bumps thing is helpful. http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneA.GIF provides classical orbitals to accommodate 30 electrons in a ring-with-6-hydrogens scenario. The problem is in feeding the electrons into it in the right order.Opposite hydrogens exchange simultaneously with this pattern, so does one give and the other get wrt their hydrogens? Or do both give? Both get? You see the problem. But three bumps seems to say that adjacent and opposite hydrogens are opposite. I'll plug that in to my Benzene Sudoku and see if it runs:http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Benzene%2520Sudoku.xls thanks franklin You do realize that the structure of benzene has been known since 1865. High resolution crystal structures of benzene have long been available. The molecular orbitals of benzene have been know since the the 1930's.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ah. Enlighten me. Explain them. This is basic organic chemistry, and much of it is even covered in the first year (college) course. When you've learned enough to ask a reasonable question, I'll answer it. Until then, try to catch up to 1865, at least.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - When you are able to map the pathways of the 30 individual electrons of Benzene according to your 'model', using AutoCad, or somesuch, please feel free to squawk. Actually, electrons in atoms don't have pathways per se, since Newtonian trajectories are inconsistent with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So drawing pathways, with Autocad or Maya or a #2 Ticonderoga pencil, is not a representation of reality, John. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
puzzle; Benzene
PD writes:
On Jun 6, 2:37=A0pm, john wrote: When you are able to map the pathways of the 30 individual electrons of Benzene according to your 'model', using AutoCad, or somesuch, please feel free to squawk. Actually, electrons in atoms don't have pathways per se, since Newtonian trajectories are inconsistent with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So drawing pathways, with Autocad or Maya or a #2 Ticonderoga pencil, is not a representation of reality, John. That's just the biggest reason why your model fails, John. Each one of those 30 electrons has an exact position and velocity (and thus momentum) at any given point in time. Quantum Mechanics states that this is impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
puzzle; Benzene
On Jun 6, 7:59*pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote: PD writes: On Jun 6, 2:37=A0pm, john wrote: When you are able to map the pathways of the 30 individual electrons of Benzene according to your 'model', using AutoCad, or somesuch, please feel free to squawk. Actually, electrons in atoms don't have pathways per se, since Newtonian trajectories are inconsistent with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So drawing pathways, with Autocad or Maya or a #2 Ticonderoga pencil, is not a representation of reality, John. That's just the biggest reason why your model fails, John. *Each one of those 30 electrons has an exact position and velocity (and thus momentum) at any given point in time. *Quantum Mechanics states that this is impossible. So, you think because my model succeeds in explaining Benzene, it has failed because your model says it can't be done? But I have demonstrated an answer. So now where does that leave your model? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
puzzle; Benzene
On Jun 7, 1:00*am, john wrote:
On Jun 6, 7:59*pm, (Michael Moroney) wrote: PD writes: On Jun 6, 2:37=A0pm, john wrote: When you are able to map the pathways of the 30 individual electrons of Benzene according to your 'model', using AutoCad, or somesuch, please feel free to squawk. Actually, electrons in atoms don't have pathways per se, since Newtonian trajectories are inconsistent with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So drawing pathways, with Autocad or Maya or a #2 Ticonderoga pencil, is not a representation of reality, John. That's just the biggest reason why your model fails, John. *Each one of those 30 electrons has an exact position and velocity (and thus momentum) at any given point in time. *Quantum Mechanics states that this is impossible. So, you think because my model succeeds in explaining Benzene, it has failed because your model says it can't be done? Drawing a path for electrons to go is not an "explanation", John. It is not comparable to any *measurable* quantities. What you've done is like coloring in a picture of an atom to claim that protons are red and neutrons are blue. It explains nothing. But I have demonstrated an answer. So now where does that leave your model? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
puzzle; Benzene
On Jun 7, 10:10*am, john wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:16*am, PD wrote: On Jun 7, 1:00*am, john wrote: On Jun 6, 7:59*pm, (Michael Moroney) wrote: PD writes: On Jun 6, 2:37=A0pm, john wrote: When you are able to map the pathways of the 30 individual electrons of Benzene according to your 'model', using AutoCad, or somesuch, please feel free to squawk. Actually, electrons in atoms don't have pathways per se, since Newtonian trajectories are inconsistent with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So drawing pathways, with Autocad or Maya or a #2 Ticonderoga pencil, is not a representation of reality, John. That's just the biggest reason why your model fails, John. *Each one of those 30 electrons has an exact position and velocity (and thus momentum) at any given point in time. *Quantum Mechanics states that this is impossible. So, you think because my model succeeds in explaining Benzene, it has failed because your model says it can't be done? Drawing a path for electrons to go is not an "explanation", John. It is not comparable to any *measurable* quantities. What you've done is like coloring in a picture of an atom to claim that protons are red and neutrons are blue. It explains nothing. Well, the proponents of QM are like the """model""" itself: way too slippery to get a grip on- twisting and turning away from any 'logical' explanation. That depends on what you are calling "logical". If a theory is logical, that normally means that it is internally inconsistent and that the conclusions follow from the premises. If by "logical" you have something else in mind -- say, "appeals to common sense" or "is like things I'm familiar with from ordinary experience", then I'm afraid you're out of luck. Scientific theories do not have that burden to demonstrate, and so there is nothing to "twist and turn away from". Proponents of QM actually eschew logic- braying out their creed: "There IS no logic", they hee-haw. "Our theory says so. No pathways, no pattern, no plan." Of *course* there's a plan and a pattern. Just not the usual Newtonian fixed trajectories that you are used to. You'll have to get over that. Unfortunately one look at Life is all it takes for anyone with brains to see that they are wrong. Actually, John, in science there is only one way to determine if a theory is wrong, and that is if it is logically inconsistent (see the *scientific* meaning of "logical" above) or if it disagrees with experimental observation. Also please note that an observation that is *unexplained* is not necessarily one that is in conflict with a theoretical observation. Our self-awareness, for example, is unexplained, but this is not in conflict with any claims of quantum mechanics, because quantum mechanics makes no prediction about self- awareness. You have a habit of saying that "anyone with brains can see that it is wrong," when in fact you don't pay any attention to the mechanisms by which science discovers that theories are wrong. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
puzzle; Benzene
"PD" wrote:
-- "hanson" wrote: hanson wrote: Hey Paul, there appears to be a wholesale, broadside onslaught and slaughter onto Scientific Orthodoxy. == First Einstein's crap was doubted & then dismantled, and now it's QMs' turn. == The Gems of Physics modeling are dying & being discarded. == There is a Science Renaissance in the making the peasants have taken up the pitchforks. == There is now a Science Spring, forget the Arab Spring. Get with it Paul, become an influence, a leader of the Sci-Rebellion! PS: Brad Guth must be celebrating. He had enough of the FUD and the FUD masters. Paul wrote: Oh, come, come, hanson. There will always be doubters. There are people who doubt the dinosaurs lived 125 million years ago, there people who doubt that we ever landed on the moon, there are people who doubt that the earth is in fact round. There was a poster to this group that doubted that (-1) x (-1) = 1. The fact that there are goofball doubters for just about anything you can imagine does not mean that the subject is at risk, let alone dismantled. hanson wrote: .... ahahahaha.. Sure there have & will be always doubters. But there also have been transitions from Ptolemy to Bruno to Hubble etc. One era dismantled the previous one. Science is an evolving, living, cultural anthropic thing!... **Believe** it or not and no pun intended. Paul wrote: You can taunt all you want that scientists are not teaching properly if there is a failure to convince every man, woman, and child of this claim or that claim. Scientists are not so foolish as to snap onto that bait. hanson wrote: What taunt?.. What bait?... All sciences, even physics & math, are social enterprises. === No money -- No physics... === Your loss, Paul. ...... ahahahahaha... ahahahahanson ----------- orig. example post of issue at hand -------------------- "john" wrote: On Jun 7, 6:16 am, Paul PD wrote: On Jun 7, 1:00 am, john wrote: On Jun 6, 7:59 pm, (Michael Moroney) wrote: john wrote: When you are able to map the pathways of the 30 individual electrons of Benzene according to your 'model', using AutoCad, or somesuch, please feel free to squawk. PD writes: Actually, electrons in atoms don't have pathways per se, since Newtonian trajectories are inconsistent with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So drawing pathways, with Autocad or Maya or a #2 Ticonderoga pencil, is not a representation of reality, John. Moroney wrote: That's just the biggest reason why your model fails, John. Each one of those 30 electrons has an exact position and velocity (and thus momentum) at any given point in time. Quantum Mechanics states that this is impossible. John wrote: So, you think because my model succeeds in explaining Benzene, it has failed because your model says it can't be done? Paul wrote: Drawing a path for electrons to go is not an "explanation", John. It is not comparable to any *measurable* quantities. What you've done is like coloring in a picture of an atom to claim that protons are red and neutrons are blue. It explains nothing. john wrote: Well, the proponents of QM are like the """model""" itself: way too slippery to get a grip on- twisting and turning away from any 'logical' explanation. Proponents of QM actually eschew logic- braying out their creed: "There IS no logic", they hee-haw. "Our theory says so. No pathways, no pattern, no plan." Unfortunately one look at Life is all it takes for anyone with brains to see that they are wrong. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
puzzle; Benzene
On Jun 7, 11:10*am, john wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:16*am, PD wrote: On Jun 7, 1:00*am, john wrote: On Jun 6, 7:59*pm, (Michael Moroney) wrote: PD writes: On Jun 6, 2:37=A0pm, john wrote: When you are able to map the pathways of the 30 individual electrons of Benzene according to your 'model', using AutoCad, or somesuch, please feel free to squawk. Actually, electrons in atoms don't have pathways per se, since Newtonian trajectories are inconsistent with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So drawing pathways, with Autocad or Maya or a #2 Ticonderoga pencil, is not a representation of reality, John. That's just the biggest reason why your model fails, John. *Each one of those 30 electrons has an exact position and velocity (and thus momentum) at any given point in time. *Quantum Mechanics states that this is impossible. So, you think because my model succeeds in explaining Benzene, it has failed because your model says it can't be done? Drawing a path for electrons to go is not an "explanation", John. It is not comparable to any *measurable* quantities. What you've done is like coloring in a picture of an atom to claim that protons are red and neutrons are blue. It explains nothing. Well, the proponents of QM are like the """model""" itself: way too slippery to get a grip on- twisting and turning away from any 'logical' explanation. Proponents of QM actually eschew logic- braying out their creed: "There IS no logic", they hee-haw. "Our theory says so. No pathways, no pattern, no plan." Unfortunately one look at Life is all it takes for anyone with brains to see that they are wrong. john Forget QM for a second - your model isn't even up to the Lewis dot theory, first employed in 1916 (to which is usually added the concept of resonance, developed by Pauling in the 1930's). Because your ring has certain "symmetry" (D6h for the crystal structure), we know immediately (without QM at all) that there must be "degeneracy" - two or more states that have exactly the same energy. It is possible to make reasonable guesses about the order of states in energy. Your model does none of that at all - it is just a picture. Chemists have 1,000's of pictures, the best of which we can use to make specific, quantitative predictions. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
puzzle; Benzene | dlzc | Astronomy Misc | 1 | June 3rd 11 06:07 PM |
Logic Puzzle | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 21st 07 07:24 AM |
Red Square puzzle. | Helios | UK Astronomy | 1 | April 21st 07 08:50 AM |
Perihelion Puzzle | OG | UK Astronomy | 3 | January 6th 04 01:17 AM |
Puzzle for Michael | Dan Bloomquist | Astronomy Misc | 3 | October 28th 03 04:26 PM |