I'm learning university level quantam theory in grade 11 chemistry!!!!
I chose not to take physics for a reason, yet they continually shove it back in my face!!! WTF!!!
Computer Science Canada Quantum Theory |
| Author: | Mr. T [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Quantum Theory |
I'm learning university level quantam theory in grade 11 chemistry!!!! I chose not to take physics for a reason, yet they continually shove it back in my face!!! WTF!!! |
|
| Author: | Naveg [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you think you're learning quantun theory, be thankful you didn't take physics. What you're learning is the bare minimum needed to understand atomic structure, not quantun theory.  |
|
| Author: | Paul [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quantum theory is not quantum physics. And Quantum Physics is not quite the same as classical or einstein physics
Woot, I love the donut shaped electron distribution pattern thingy though, its cool. |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Paul wrote: Woot, I love the donut shaped electron distribution pattern thingy though, its cool. Of a hexene type structure? In case I forgot the naming, I'm referring to a carbon ring structure in which every other carbon-carbon bond is a double bond. I love the uncertainty principle. 
Pwned: Why don't you elaborate a little more on what exactly it is you're learning? |
|
| Author: | Paul [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
no, I'm refering to the orbitals in quantum theory of electron distribution. I believe the donut shape appears in the "P" orbitals. 
More info here |
|
| Author: | Mr. T [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Alex's Opinion |
Paul wrote: no, I'm refering to the orbitals in quantum theory of electron distribution. I believe the donut shape appears in the "P" orbitals.
More info here Cervantes: This is pretty much what we're learning at the moment. |
|
| Author: | Paul [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
uncertainty principle is I believe, the more you are sure about the position of a specific particle, the less you know about its momentum (the uncertainty for it increases dramatically), so according to classical physics, if you knew the position and momentum of every particle in the universe, you can predict the future. But with the uncertainty principle, you can't. It also applies to energy/time and also particle/wave duality. If you design an experiment to prove that a photon is a particle, you'll only see it as a particle, and vice versa for waves. See einstein-born letters for more details, since Einstein's famous phrase was "god does not play dice with the universe", yet according to quantum physics, it does. And its suprisingly accurate in its predictions and has passed every test thrown its way in the last 50-70 years or so. Apparently General Relativity is not compatible with quantum physics, and most physicists study either one or the other. The next big thing I suppose is the string theory. Both fields have been very useful to say the least. Microchips would not exist without quantum physics. Quantum computers are the future too, the whole idea is not multiple universes and the like, but elimination of all the cables and wires inside a computer, where data is transferred instantaneously. The beginning I believe was a constructed large size subatomic particle like thing, made with superconducters in which a change in one side is instantaneously seen in the other side (read up on how obvserving one particle can immediately affect the other). Obviously we don't have any applications for this such as instantaneous communication to the moon, but on smaller scales you have possibilities for quantum computers. Whereas Relativity has contributed to things like GPS, GPS would not be accurate at all if it weren't for relativity. This is based on the fact that objects that travel faster in the spacial dimensions travel slower in the dimension of time. Anyway, wow, i remember that much, awesome. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So Heisenberg was driving along the highway when a police officer pulled him over. Officer: "Do you have any idea how fast you were going?" Heisenberg: "Nope, but I know exactly where I am!" I'm pretty much majoring in physics. I love it. Remember, the uncertainty principle is due to the quantum nature of matter, not inaccuracy in our measuring equipment. |
|
| Author: | Hikaru79 [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ugh. I'm going to be staying up late tonight working on a chemistry paper relating to quantum theory. It's about Bader's method of partitioning the topology of the electron density in order to split up a molecule into mononuclear regions. I can't even pronounce half of these formulas. Martin, if you know anything about this, please help me before I dig myself any deeper into this hole I've found myself in :S I don't know why on earth I chose this topic. |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wow. I remember back in the day when all you had to do was write about nuclear explosions to get a 4+. ("you" = me  ) |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hikaru79 wrote: Ugh. I'm going to be staying up late tonight working on a chemistry paper relating to quantum theory. It's about Bader's method of partitioning the topology of the electron density in order to split up a molecule into mononuclear regions. I can't even pronounce half of these formulas. Martin, if you know anything about this, please help me before I dig myself any deeper into this hole I've found myself in :S I don't know why on earth I chose this topic.
Woah. Nope, never even heard of that. Sorry. |
|
| Author: | Paul [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
never heard of them either. here are some quick links though: http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/faculty/bader/aim/aim_1.html http://theory.cm.utexas.edu/bader/ also try using bigchalk (e-library now is it?) and other resources. Is this a new subject? |
|
| Author: | Hikaru79 [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've already found all that information. I'm just having trouble *understanding* all the information. For example, in order to get the measurements regarding the spatial pairing of electrons, you need to calculate the 'Laplacian' of the electron density. That math is just way above me. I'm looking for a sort of watered down explanation of the math. I'm actually quite comfortable with the rest of the actual chemistry. |
|
| Author: | Paul [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, chemistry is my lowest mark (its sitting at an unhappy 87%, and I have no idea whats going on), but it seems this is a relatively new and unexciting topic (?). And I guess you're on your own, unless you plan to send emails politely asking the people who know what they're talking about for a bit of assistance. I usually choose my topics with the availability of information in mind. Sorry I can't help you further. |
|
| Author: | Mr. T [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Alex's Opinion |
Wave if you know Schrödinger. 
If you understand this play on words, laugh it up.  |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
speaking of quantum computing, i do not perosanly blive it will ever be phesable. It may be posable but i do not think the hardware will be to big. Here is my reasning: Lets say a noraml criut for 1 bit on a comp is X big and has on and off (2 setings) now if a quantum computer has a 1 bit cruit that is 2X big and has 3 setings. then you could put at least 2 noraml criuts where u could put one. 2 noraml whould be 4 setings and 1 quantum whould be 3 so u have 1 more seting with the noraml way in the the quatum in the same space. But admity i do not know that much about quantum computing and could very well be wrong. |
|
| Author: | beard0 [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dan: The whole thing with quantum computing is the multitude of states that would theoretically be possible. If we were able to set a hydrogen atom to a certain quantum state, and read it without destroying that state, we would theoretically be able to store the entire Encylopedia Brittanica on a single atom. If quantum computing becomes possible, space will not be an issue. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was refuing to the use of qutom computing in processing rather then in sotronge. Where the idea of having more then 2 states to be used in processing data (ie. CPU) comes in. In such a case there whould be a posblity of 3 states with qutom computing, on, off and both. This is what i was talking about where space effsieny should come in to mind. |
|
| Author: | Brightguy [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quantum Theory |
There's more to it than just adding 1 more state, though. A quantum computer can 'somehow' be in a superposition of all possible states at the same time. (e.g., Wikipedia says that a 3-qubit quantum computer can represent 8 possible states, while of course a 3-bit classical computer can only represent 1 at a time.) |
|
| Author: | md [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quantum Theory |
Brightguy wrote: There's more to it than just adding 1 more state, though. A quantum computer can 'somehow' be in a superposition of all possible states at the same time.
(e.g., Wikipedia says that a 3-qubit quantum computer can represent 8 possible states, while of course a 3-bit classical computer can only represent 1 at a time.) I don't remember exactly how this is supposed to work, but I do remember that there was a good explanation of it. The key part is that when you perform an operation on the qubit it's performed on all of the possible states. This is where the power of quantum computers comes from. There have been some very interesting algorithms designed that take this principal to heart, and if you could bild a QC to run them on you could do such things as factor any number to it's primes, really really quickly... very useful for breaking public key encryption that would be |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Martin wrote: So Heisenberg was driving along the highway when a police officer pulled him over.
Officer: "Do you have any idea how fast you were going?" Heisenberg: "Nope, but I know exactly where I am!" I'm pretty much majoring in physics. I love it. Remember, the uncertainty principle is due to the quantum nature of matter, not inaccuracy in our measuring equipment. Hey Martin. I understand how matter and anti-matter can be created in "empty" space, destroy each other, and relinquish their "borrowed" energy, but could you explain how that extends to the very nature of spacetime: Just how does the curvature of spacetime get involved in this, a la quantum foam. Pwned: Yeah, I saw that in my brother's second or third year organic chemistry class. Doesn't mean it is university stuff. That was right at the beginning of his textbook: it was a review, not new material for that class. (I learned it in gr. 11 too.) |
|
| Author: | MysticVegeta [ Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
We are doing orbital quantum theory in grade 10 chem right now.... |
|
| Author: | we64 [ Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't think those teachers even know what they are talking about about Quantum orbitals and stuff. They are just like here, memorize s, p, d, f orbitals and this quantum number and this shape and that. I did well on the test for the unit, but then I am lack of understanding of Quantum Mechanics and in the later units where I try to apply it to solve some problems, my teacher is like "you are wrong" and give me a non-sense, exception explanation, which makes me doubt if he knows what he is talking about, or he must taught us wrong in the previous unit. Isn't Quantum Mechanics is about math and probability and wave equation and complex calculus and stuff? |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
we64 wrote: Isn't Quantum Mechanics is about math and probability and wave equation and complex calculus and stuff?
From what I understand of it, the s, p, d, & f orbitals are just showing you where there is a high probability that the electrons for that orbital will be. Don't think you're actually learning quantum mechanics. |
|
| Author: | we64 [ Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
yeah I dont' think I am actually learning about it at all. My teacher loves to use the terms just because he think it is cool. And sometimes it does feel cool to shout out loud "Quantum Mechanics says....." in front of a bunch of grade 10 and 9ers XD |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
we64 wrote: And sometimes it does feel cool to shout out loud "Quantum Mechanics says....." in front of a bunch of grade 10 and 9ers XD
That's right! Assert your dominance.  |
|
| Author: | Paul [ Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes, you're learning quantum mechanics. How it applies to chemistry and bonding anyway, and not the cool quantum physics. As for physics, we're nowhere near done classical physics yet... so you'll have to wait. |
|
| Author: | Mr. T [ Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Alex's Opinion |
MysticVegeta wrote: We are doing orbital quantum theory in grade 10 chem right now....
Doing the exact same thing in grade 11 chemistry.  |
|