The Periodic Table - 2015-09-18 (page 3 of 5)

« first day (1240 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3133 days later) »

1:00 PM

'Allene' doesn't work, because that's CH2CCH2.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Jan @Loong is your guy.

user161117

wait what are you looking to name specifically I don't know if I'm on the same page as you

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M dating again?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Loong Some people never learn . . .

Dating? Whom?

@StevenGrigsby propene.

1:01 PM

@Jan me?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Haha I love misunderstandings.

awww, @Loong and @inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M ; what a perfect couple =*,...,*=

user161117

In chemistry, vinyl or ethenyl is the functional group −CH=CH2, namely the ethylene molecule (H2C=CH2) minus one hydrogen atom. The name is also used for any compound containing that group, namely R−CH=CH2 where R is any other group of atoms. An industrially important example is vinyl chloride, precursor to PVC, a plastic commonly known as vinyl. Vinyl is one of the alkenyl functional groups. On a carbon skeleton, sp2-hybridized carbons or positions are often called vinylic. Allyls, acrylates and styrenics contain vinyl groups. (A styrenic crosslinker with two vinyl groups is called divinyl benzene...

user161117

idk like the functional group or like something more

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Vinyl is old name.

I don't think you do IUPAC with old names.

It's retained, prolly.

1:02 PM

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M yes, retained for general nomenclature

user161117

Yeah well I'm just asking as far as to clarify what he's asking to name haha

Because ethenyl is longer

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ For once I'm right.

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M At least he's admitting to be wrong most of the time!

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

I'm only wrong when @Martin's around.

user161117

1:04 PM

why

Which is almost always.

user161117

haha

Because @Martin is our god and emperor and therefore always correct.

user161117

oh shit

user161117

do I have to sacrifice virgins to him

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

1:05 PM

Because @Mart's sausages look delicious.

Because @Mart's German.

user161117

kinky

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

The possibilities are endless!

Also thanks @soundslikefiziks for your question, that looks like its turning into a nice answer of mine =D I like virtual badges =D

Also, I'll be leaving for the weekend now =D Good things when there's not much to do on Fridays xD. See ya round o/

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

\o

@Martin while you're asleep, I'll probably take the liberty of sweeping the front page with retags, BWAHHAHAHA.

Just kidding, I'll do twenty every hour.

soundslikefiziks

@Jan i knew you were flying somewhere!

1:16 PM

@Martin-マーチン Thanks. I can't vote for my own post even as CW

so just one more person needs to upvote chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/37425/…

then it will be back to neutral and we can lock it (if that's appropriate)

Martin - マーチン

1:32 PM

I'll head out to my extended weekend... it's sliver week in japan, so I might not be around to lock it for some time... see y'all later ;)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Later!

@Martin-マーチン Happy holidays!

soundslikefiziks

2:13 PM

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M @StevenGrigsby Tippers of the world unite! say no to emotional extortion!

Don't worry, I'm not reopening the topic :)

user161117

lol

soundslikefiziks

:x :)

user161117

hey what kinds of math/physics/chemistry do you like?

soundslikefiziks

Trigonometry

Electricity

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

I like chemistry. All of it. All of it that's actually science.

soundslikefiziks

2:18 PM

What isn't science ?

i mean , under chemistry

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Oversimplifications. Pedantry. Prescriptive nonexistent "rules".

soundslikefiziks

like not taking into consideration 3d movements of molecules ?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Hmm?

soundslikefiziks

as an example of too simplified formulas

user161117

huh what do you mean, so much of chemistry is approximations

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

2:21 PM

@StevenGrigsby Approximations based on calculation is different from saying "all atoms must have 8 valence electrons to be stable".

user161117

I guess what's an example of a simplification that's acceptable maybe I misunderstand you when you say oversimplification

user161117

Oh yeah, I agree the octet rule is kinda garbage

user161117

it's just like teaching kids "FOIL"

soundslikefiziks

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M wait, i'm just starting my learning , i should ignore the octet rule ??

user161117

Eh, I mean if you're serious about chemistry you'll learn eventually that it's nothing special

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

2:23 PM

@soundslikefiziks No, but don't take it seriously.

Chemistry's like this: If you ever saw an awesome molecule that trips over anything you studied, don't be surprised.

Then you'll be fine.

soundslikefiziks

please don't tell me it's like electronics, where only recently i found out that i had so many misconceptions (amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

The Chemistry teachers teach has a lot of misconceptions, not much of which can be found on the Net.

user161117

Eh, I mean the octet rule isn't the devil though, I mean i wouldn't expect them to start from quantum mechanics to explain the rule

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Yes, that's one reason.

user161117

there's way too much in chemistry to start it without making some pretty bad things to get people to dive in

soundslikefiziks

2:26 PM

We can start with "all chemical bonds are based on electrostatics"

user161117

Errr they're not

soundslikefiziks

first misconception already?!?!

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

The reason I believe myself to be lucky is that whenever my teacher teaches me curricular garbage, he says "this is scientifically wrong though. Read about blah and bleh to see why."

user161117

I mean that's important but the octet rule and all this is quantum mechanics

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@soundslikefiziks Oversimplification.

user161117

2:27 PM

well, I wouldn't quite say you can separate the two since they both exist

soundslikefiziks

Wait, can you give me one chemical bond that has nothing to do with electrons ?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

The easiest, most digestible way to study chemistry is to study seemingly easy molecules, then head on to harder ones @Sound.

user161117

bonding involves electrostatics but if it was purely electrostatics you'd have no orbital structure I think just pure electrons between protons

user161117

Like pi-bonds don't make sense in terms of electrostatics I think

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Hmm, we could say that actually.

soundslikefiziks

2:29 PM

the electrons just occupy the "allowed" energy levels by the quantum theory , but still. it's electrons and protones interacting in the bond

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

But so much lies beneath those words @Sound.

Yeah.

user161117

Yeah, also, there are antibonding orbitals and the Pauli exclusion principle at play

user161117

Without QM you could just have any electrons anywhere

user161117

no restrictions

soundslikefiziks

everywhere around the atom ? or literally everywhere?

user161117

2:31 PM

all the properties of the periodic table would probably not be very interesting, since "Carbon forming 4 bonds" would not really be a thing

user161117

at that point, atoms just amount to having larger positive charge

user161117

What do you mean?

user161117

It's just a hypothetical scenario kind of trying to describe what a world without QM might look like so

user161117

it's not super serious or well thought out since it's not real

user161117

like radicals, they don't make sense unless you have QM, if you're familiar with radicals

soundslikefiziks

2:33 PM

And wouldn't highly positive charged atoms be attracted to a negatively charge atom and create another interaction caused by electrostatics

Radicals in the the Schrödinger equation ?

user161117

Huh, no

user161117

I mean unpaired electrons

soundslikefiziks

no.

user161117

there's no reason within the framework of electrostatics that would make an "unpaired electron" somehow more reactive

soundslikefiziks

i'm still having time understanding the paired electrons

user161117

2:35 PM

Right, well for instance you're familiar with the concept of the "octet rule" even if it is a bad thing

soundslikefiziks

yes

user161117

it's not that bad but whatever for this discussion we can expand on it later

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Wait, what exactly are you currently studying?

soundslikefiziks

and it just looks logical

user161117

Why do halogens gain an electron?

user161117

2:36 PM

It doesn't make much sense that it would prefer to be unbalanced in charge from the perspective of electrostatics

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@StevenGrigsby It's delicious.

user161117

in an electrostatic world I'd imagine all atoms to be neutral

soundslikefiziks

wait, i need to see halogens atom structure

user161117

they're the second to last column on the periodic table

soundslikefiziks

those who have equal amount of electrons and protons will

or is that another misconception ?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

2:36 PM

Yes, but what are you studying?

Electronic configurations?

Octet rule?

Periodic trends?

user161117

@soundslikefiziks I don't understand your question

soundslikefiziks

i guess basic atomic physics

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

It's just so much to be in a single gulp.

soundslikefiziks

it's all connected on that level, that i try to grasp

user161117

Yeah atomic physics is not the same thing as general chemistry

soundslikefiziks

2:38 PM

what do you mean ?

user161117

For the most part, chemists don't care about atoms

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

What are your sources?

user161117

they care about electrons

soundslikefiziks

books and too many online tutorial posts youtube lectures

user161117

well, depends on who you talk to, but physicists care more about atoms and chemists care more about electrons haha

soundslikefiziks

2:38 PM

basically nothing

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Yes, they don't care as much as they care for around the nucleus.

user161117

around and sometimes inside :P

soundslikefiziks

wait wait, but if you could say that it's all about electrostatics, then yes, it is exactly connected

how can it even be seperated ?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@soundslikefiziks Well "positive attracts negative" is what you're gonna use for many of your reasoning.

user161117

because these are just models of reality

soundslikefiziks

2:39 PM

i mean , i can understand how a computer language and a resistor have different levels of relationships

user161117

and they're not real

user161117

so you can look at the coulomb law and see there's nothing really there to give us stuff like the octet rule or pi-bonding (that I can see)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Sounds like don't start with many sources. Just start with chemguide and chemwiki-UCDavis.

soundslikefiziks

yes, also the concept of charge is ambiguous

but still, things do happen and attractions do occur

user161117

how is charge ambiguous?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

2:41 PM

@StevenGrigsby Why does a positive charge attract a negative charge?

user161117

electrons hold a negative charge, protons hold a single positive charge, and atoms are defined by how many protons they have

soundslikefiziks

yes, exactly,

But,

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

> What does negative charge mean?

user161117

No one can answer why questions in physics or chemistry

user161117

we can only assign models and say, "Oh hey this works"

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

2:42 PM

@StevenGrigsby Physics and chemistry exist to answer "why"s.

user161117

Why does this invisible force called gravity pull me down?

user161117

No one knows why

soundslikefiziks

but you give it a value

user161117

but Einstein gave a better description of it than Newton

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

The more we understand, the better and harder the whys are explained.

soundslikefiziks

2:42 PM

a constant

where does coulombs constant come into place?

user161117

What does negative charge mean? Depends on what you mean when you ask that

soundslikefiziks

you just know the directions and some number of a force he calcualted called "charge"

user161117

for instance, you could say, a proton isn't really a single positive charge

user161117

it's really two +2/3 charges and one -1/3 charge

soundslikefiziks

oh ok, so the completed "missing" charge will be accomplished by adding the missing electron ?

if (-) charge could even be considered as "missing"

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Thanks for the chemguide and chemwiki-UCDavis reference

user161117

2:46 PM

That's essentially how the positron was conjectured and eventually disovered

user161117

but no, that's not really what I was saying

soundslikefiziks

ok go on

user161117

I was just saying that protons are made up of 3 quarks, 2 up and 1 down

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

I really dunno what we're trying to get at here.

@soundslikefiziks Welcome!

user161117

I didn't think we were getting at anything specific

user161117

2:47 PM

just general understanding of chemistry haha

soundslikefiziks

ok, but before getting deeper into the proton, why can i understand gravity more simply while in the case of electrostatics i cant ?

user161117

?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@soundslikefiziks Gravity exists IRL in a simpler form.

user161117

No one understands gravity so

soundslikefiziks

i mean , there are levels of knowledge , why can't i choose not to go into the quantum mechanics and simply grasp it all on the "superficial" level of, protons have a charge electrons have a charge, they interact and the field looks like this <some vector field graph>

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

2:50 PM

@soundslikefiziks You can choose that.

Many people do.

user161117

yeah I'm not stopping you haha

soundslikefiziks

up till yesterday i thought electrons actually move really fast inside a conductor, only to find out they don't

user161117

I'll even try to help haha

soundslikefiziks

they actually move really slow

user161117

Yeah haha that's a fun misconception

user161117

2:51 PM

"how do they travel from the light switch to the light so fast!"

user161117

they don't, but electrons pushing each other with the electric field is what propagates at the speed of light, like beads on a chain

soundslikefiziks

well i thought they travel at the speed of light

user161117

Yeah here's a similar question to test your understanding

user161117

if I poke you with a stick, the end moves instantaneously

user161117

so if I create a stick longer than a lightyear, can I push it and poke someone and communicate faster than the speed of light?

soundslikefiziks

2:52 PM

but this was my problem , i thought that on one side you have those electronless protons , eager to meet their partners to fill up their emptyness and on the other side there are those ..... oh wait, it's starting to look like sperm cells and an egg

user161117

haha

user161117

Who knew the circle of life was really just a giant circuit?

soundslikefiziks

yes

a huge baloon

oh you said circuit

i thought you meant the egg

deleting subconscious in 3.. 2... 1

user161117

haha

soundslikefiziks

So no protons are waiting on the other side ?

i can get how AC makes electrons oscillate

wiggle in place

user161117

2:57 PM

protons?

soundslikefiziks

well, atoms containing protons with insufficient eletrons

user161117

Nah, the metal of the wire has a lotta energy levels that the protons can occupy called bands so that it can allow electrons to easily move between them

soundslikefiziks

You know who i need to blame ?

That damn Bucket analogy

user161117

so they are kinda easily shuffled back and forth

soundslikefiziks

or Water flow analogy

user161117

2:58 PM

haha no I think the bucket analogy is good

user161117

for this at least

soundslikefiziks

i used to thing the holes actually reach to the other side

so everything was logical

user161117

well there is hole theory of electron flows which you can think of as a positive charge flowing in the opposite direction to the electron flow

« first day (1240 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3133 days later) »

Transcript for

Sep '1518

The Periodic Table

Haikus are awesome / Chemistry's even better / So pull up a chair

blowing-the-lab-up german-stuff hullo love-you-all martin table-flipping tre welcome

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile