A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

puzzle; Benzene



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 6th 11, 10:36 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default 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.
Ads
  #12  
Old June 7th 11, 02:59 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
Michael Moroney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 124
Default 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  
Old June 7th 11, 07:00 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default 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  
Old June 7th 11, 01:16 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default 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  
Old June 7th 11, 05:29 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default 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  
Old June 7th 11, 08:19 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default 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  
Old June 7th 11, 08:25 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
Robert Higgins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.