Could the rules of chemistry be re-written?

krd

Could the rules of chemistry be re-written?

What I mean is that atoms/molecules, instead of this electron sharing blah blah, could be treated by the shapes of their electro-static fields. (because I imagine there are only a limited number of shapes) - and something else could give the energetic favourability.

As far as I am of the belief (and I am an idiot)....Chemistry is the science of mixing up bits and pieces of lego, you know that if you shake the box enough will form with other pieces of lego you'd like them to.

I like my idea.............Anyone else have an opinion?

raah!

There are already ways you can predict this or that bonding behaviour as a result of the minimisation of a particular potential. The concept of 'electronegativity' is just a summarisation of results from calculations like that. Writing all of those laws more explicitly in terms of their quatum mechanical origin would elicit greater understanding, but wouldn't necessarily be more useful. It's a pretty good thing that chemistry people can start from the point of electronegativity and go on from there.

Just like it's pretty good that you can have things like boyle's law and the second law of thermodynamics without understanding the statistical basis to those laws. So I think the chemistry laws are good as they are, just like the laws of thermodynamics based on those macro-observations have an attractiveness of their own without the full story you might get from statistical physics.

Morbert

krd wrote: »

Could the rules of chemistry be re-written?

What I mean is that atoms/molecules, instead of this electron sharing blah blah, could be treated by the shapes of their electro-static fields. (because I imagine there are only a limited number of shapes) - and something else could give the energetic favourability.

As far as I am of the belief (and I am an idiot)....Chemistry is the science of mixing up bits and pieces of lego, you know that if you shake the box enough will form with other pieces of lego you'd like them to.

I like my idea.............Anyone else have an opinion?

What you're talking about is quantum chemistry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry

krd

Morbert wrote: »

What you're talking about is quantum chemistry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry

I was thinking along the lines of Quantum Chemistry, but it just seems so computationally heavy. Using super computers to do Monte Carlo.

I've watched some lectures on basic Quantum Chemistry on line - and just the basics, representing an atoms states in matrices, didn't really look like a revolution to me.

What I was thinking, that through analysis (computational) some simpler statistical rules would emerge. I don't mean childishly simple, I mean you wouldn't need a super computer running something insane for months. Something where you could relatively easily predict interesting properties of materials.

I've heard Lawrence Krauss (Universe from Nothing) say he believed the next step up in evolution will be the rise of the robots - who will be able to know quantum physics instantaneously, and do calculations and recognise material properties that are just well beyond any capability we can have.

Robot chemistry will likely be radically different.

Justin1982

Personally I think they need to stop teaching the physics of chemistry as tiny electron balls whizzing around a nucleus which is comprised of red and white marbels, all the same size, stuck together in a ball :rolleyes:

If you learn whats actually going on in an atom, a nucleus or a long chain molecule and actually understand it....well, the reality is completely different.

Bohr and his simplistic model of the atom has a lot to answer for!

krd

Justin1982 wrote: »

Personally I think they need to stop teaching the physics of chemistry as tiny electron balls whizzing around a nucleus which is comprised of red and white marbels, all the same size, stuck together in a ball :rolleyes:

I think that one is called the Rutherford model....And it's still in loads of books. I think it comes from people asking him what an atom looked like - and him saying it's like a plum pudding with little bits stuck in it and they're the electrons - eyes spinning and hands waving. Of course Rutherford's lab find this not to be true - then electrons orbiting like planets - a moment of satisfaction, and then the realisation this model poses as many, if not more problems.

If you learn whats actually going on in an atom, a nucleus or a long chain molecule and actually understand it....well, the reality is completely different.

But how long does it take to learn the reality. In Roger Penrose's book 'Road to Reality' in the foreword of one of the editions he says something like, if you really work at it, it'll take you about 7 years to get through this book. Practically, for chemists, it's using some basic principles and then learning lots of different reactions.

The little balls and sticks they use, may not be what is actually happening, but it's useful for figuring out molecules, for practical purposes. And if you do some X-ray crystallography, it kind of does look like you can see the balls, if not the sticks (but even in physics books they draw the sticks in).

A lot of chemistry is "mix this, mix this and mix some of this...and with some luck you'll get 70% product, and 30% mysterious gunk" - the only thing chemists lack to go with their white lab coats is pointy white hats. Biologists are just as bad - biological organisms can produce immensely complex chemicals with incredible precision. But up to not a very long time ago, the explanations were eye rolling and hand waving. Even Watson and Crick's double helix employs the balls and sticks - which they saw through X-ray crystallography. "Hey look.. There's the balls, let's get some sticks and build one".

I think, as far as the human brain can manage, we'll always need the balls and sticks.

Bohr and his simplistic model of the atom has a lot to answer for!

Supposedly Bohr to have said, that even he regretted seeing the Bohr model.

But maybe there needs to be a hierarchy of meta models and animations (which will be in the school books of the not too distant future) to better conceptualise the reality.