May 25, 2019, 03:41:55 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Interesting video on Mercury melting point  (Read 3448 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Archer

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1001
  • Mole Snacks: +85/-20
  • Gender: Male
Interesting video on Mercury melting point
« on: August 24, 2013, 05:27:37 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtnsHtYYKf0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

These YouTube films titled Periodic Table of Videos are really interesting. This one discusses a paper on why metallic mercury has such a low melting point.


“ I love him. He's hops. He's barley. He's protein. He's a meal. ”

Denis Leary.

Offline magician4

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 567
  • Mole Snacks: +70/-11
Re: Interesting video on Mercury melting point
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2013, 04:42:28 PM »
I didn't read the original paper discussed here (and referred to by this guy), but any explanation involving electrons moving about like in Bohr's good old days really make me think about the credibility of anything given there (besides: this whole setup also strictly contradicts all accepted models dealing with metal bonding, i.e. "electron gas" / ionic rumps and thatlike, and Hg still is NO isolator, is it? )

to summarize the (undisputed!) basic principles of modern understanding of atom rumps and electrons in interaction:

there are NO electrons moving about with the "vicinity of an atom core" being the situation they're exposed to

under those conditions, electrons reveal their respective nature as quantummechanical objects , i.e. "standing waves" in this case

hence,  they don't move about on some kind of imaginary orbits to counterbalance anything (as Bohr was thinking) ...
... and the don't "fall" into the core BECAUSE they're already "there", i.e. the balance point of their wave function (which is NOT the gist of it's mass!) already IS exactly there. as it doesn't get any closer for a wavefunction than that, that's the whole solution of this old riddle


 :rarrow: being able to calculate accidentally correct results from grossly false assumptions doesn't make those assumptions any better
science has to go deeper than that

... and I would be ashamed of "Angewandte Chemie" if they really had published a paper to such an argumentation (having had some of my papers published there myself)

regards

Ingo
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
(Douglas Adams)

Offline Archer

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1001
  • Mole Snacks: +85/-20
  • Gender: Male
Re: Interesting video on Mercury melting point
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2013, 05:23:10 PM »
Professor Poliakoff was severely dumbing down the content of the paper to make it easier to understand. These videos are aimed at people with little or no knowledge of chemistry to try to make it interesting to the masses.

Probably best if you read the primary reference and then provide your critique, I would be interested to see what you think of it.
“ I love him. He's hops. He's barley. He's protein. He's a meal. ”

Denis Leary.

Offline Archer

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1001
  • Mole Snacks: +85/-20
  • Gender: Male
Re: Interesting video on Mercury melting point
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2013, 08:23:56 AM »
I didn't read the original paper discussed here (and referred to by this guy), but any explanation involving electrons moving about like in Bohr's good old days really make me think about the credibility of anything given there (besides: this whole setup also strictly contradicts all accepted models dealing with metal bonding, i.e. "electron gas" / ionic rumps and thatlike, and Hg still is NO isolator, is it? )

to summarize the (undisputed!) basic principles of modern understanding of atom rumps and electrons in interaction:

there are NO electrons moving about with the "vicinity of an atom core" being the situation they're exposed to

under those conditions, electrons reveal their respective nature as quantummechanical objects , i.e. "standing waves" in this case

hence,  they don't move about on some kind of imaginary orbits to counterbalance anything (as Bohr was thinking) ...
... and the don't "fall" into the core BECAUSE they're already "there", i.e. the balance point of their wave function (which is NOT the gist of it's mass!) already IS exactly there. as it doesn't get any closer for a wavefunction than that, that's the whole solution of this old riddle


 :rarrow: being able to calculate accidentally correct results from grossly false assumptions doesn't make those assumptions any better
science has to go deeper than that

... and I would be ashamed of "Angewandte Chemie" if they really had published a paper to such an argumentation (having had some of my papers published there myself)

regards

Ingo

Anyone is invited to write a correspondence to Angewandte Chemie  with their views on any published manuscript.

 The following instructions can be found on their website;

 http://www.wiley-vch.de/vch/journals/2002/2002_guideline.html

 
Quote

 2.6. Correspondences

Manuscripts that critically comment on publications in Angewandte Chemie can be published as Correspondences if they make an important contribution to the scientific discussion. The author of the publication to which the Correspondence pertains will have the opportunity to reply.
“ I love him. He's hops. He's barley. He's protein. He's a meal. ”

Denis Leary.

Offline magician4

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 567
  • Mole Snacks: +70/-11
Re: Interesting video on Mercury melting point
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2013, 01:41:45 PM »
Quote
Anyone is invited to write a correspondence (...)
in theory, yes. in reality: no

Hence, I'm just talking this one over with some friends of mine from the physicist's department...

you know how it works : better to let someone with a lot of "professor" in his title and a prooven outstanding publication record in Science / Nature come forward with such a critique

Let's see ...

regards

Ingo
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
(Douglas Adams)

Offline Archer

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1001
  • Mole Snacks: +85/-20
  • Gender: Male
Re: Interesting video on Mercury melting point
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2013, 04:49:17 PM »
I disagree, I have clashed horns on many occasions with my peers, I have come out with my tail between my legs mostly but on occasion I have fought my corner and won.

One time I am particularly proud of it because it resulted in a change to legislation. Unfortunately this was done behind closed doors so only a select group know about it but I was right and those that were involved know I was so now I have the respect of those who did not dare to question the "expert"

Sadly on one occasion where I could have made a name for myself I was beaten to the finish line by another research group after 13 years trying to prove the inconsistencies in a 40 year old error. I was the first one to publish the possibility of inconsistencies in the original publication though.

Bitter sweet that I didn't get the proof first but at least it is on permanent record that I was first and right to question it.

I cannot hope to understand this particular paper, it is well beyond my field of expertise and academic ability, you clearly have the level of understanding to put your head above the parapet and yet only do so with the luxury of forum anonymity.

What's the worst that can happen? You are wrong and look like a fool to a research group who will most likely forget about it in a week, the best that can happen.....the Emperors new clothes springs to mind.

At least consider it, you may regret not having faith in your self when another non-prof.  shouts the proverbial "hang on he's naked!"
“ I love him. He's hops. He's barley. He's protein. He's a meal. ”

Denis Leary.

Offline magician4

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 567
  • Mole Snacks: +70/-11
Re: Interesting video on Mercury melting point
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2013, 12:35:30 PM »
Looks like we do have different experiences on how high- (Nature , Science) and mediumlevel papers (like " Angewandte..") would react to contributions from nonentities: due to my perception, trying for this is futile, as those days of Einstein are gone.*)

However, more to the subject in question:
To translate the abstract, mathematical results of quantummechanics ( let alone quantum electrodynamics, as in this case) into something "imaginable" ( in a human, psychological sense ) is difficult at it's best, and often prone to simplifications going too far, and even leading to misconceptions thereby.

In my opinion, this is one of those cases.

At times, physicists state that atoms in experiments often behave (!) like there were those "shells , radii, spins.." for real (though they know that there aren't), and that values gained from such an assumption often meet reality quite closely -  but are much easier to calculate for.
This consistency of results and (false, but still working) assumptions at times gets confused with the allowance to state that in fact there were those "Bohr radii ..." in reality.

(Take a look at this Wiki article related to our topic, and you know what I mean)

Now, as you can learn from above cited Wiki article, the substance of what Professor Poliakoff was so excited about has been known for a very long time, and is old news hence. Even Dirac knew that the "speed" of quantum objects (and the relativistic influence resulting thereof) has to be considered for more precise results. Unfortunately, the equations resulting from such an approach for high object systems (like late heavy metals are) were way beyond anything people could calculate for in those days - which lead to the "simplified" equations used in traditional quantum mechanics.

If , however, you still wanted to include relativistic effects, you'd have to introduce a relativistic Hamilton operator (Dirac made some proposals for those) into your equations.
To calculate the mess resulting thereof required high calculation capacities , hence computers.

... and that's what the paper in "Angewandte..."  in question is all about: they've done it, successfully, and not only for one single atom, but for a huge multitude of those ( as multi - metallic bonds and thatlike had to be calculated for ) , and they deserve credit for it.

Nevertheless, still electrons don't move about in orbits -  and of course the authors knew, and of course neither did they use this modell for their calculations, nor did they follow this line of reasoning in their paper expressively (as I know by now, a few days later).
Giving however exactly this impression  "to the unwashed masses" by secondary commentators of some otherwise undisputed credibility, that's what annoys me.


regards

Ingo

*)
at best, publishing these days**) is a struggle for survival, and when it comes to politics, at worst a war.
Even with strictly scientific results, you can't just come along and have something published: there's just too much money and influence involved ("publish or perish") with every page in those journals , and everybody is fighting for his little place in the sun.
It's getting worse when your results contradict official political correctness: for example, take a look at the results of Prof. Niles Harrit ( and where he had to publish it: this should have been on the front page of Science and Nature instead, let alone in the news every other day since..)

**)
well, truth be told, it hadn't been that much easier in the old days either. Take a look at the work of Carl Wilhelm Scheele who did discover so much, but was unable to get it published (and hence wasn't credited for it over a long period of time)
« Last Edit: August 31, 2013, 01:39:17 PM by magician4 »
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
(Douglas Adams)

Sponsored Links