Quantum Theory

[Mr. T]

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!!!

[Naveg]

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.

[Paul]

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.

[Cervantes]

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?

[Paul]

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

[Mr. T]

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.

[Paul]

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.

[Martin]

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.

[Hikaru79]

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.

[Mazer]

Wow. I remember back in the day when all you had to do was write about nuclear explosions to get a 4+.

("you" = me )

[Martin]

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.

[Paul]

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?

[Hikaru79]

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.

[Paul]

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.

[Mr. T]

Wave if you know Schrödinger.
If you understand this play on words, laugh it up.