Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Preface: This is an incredibly convoluted paper and I can't seem to follow your train of thought. It may be due to the fact it was translated.
Let me see if I understand this right. You are trying to use a "contradiction" between quantum superposition and valence bond theory/molecular orbital theory to prove that quantum superposition is wrong? That is what I take from the "God does not play dice" comment. That is totally ass-backwards. If their is a contradiction, it would be proving that VB and MO are wrong, not the other way around, as they are built on quantum mechanics in the first place.
"In chemistry, valence bond (VB) theory is one of two basic theories, along with molecular orbital (MO) theory, that were developed to use the methods of quantum mechanics to explain chemical bonding."
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_bond_theory
I'm not really sure where this contradiction you are claiming is, for one, you say "But then it is obvious that both the MO method and the VB method contradict the principle of quantum superposition. Since the real molecule in the VB method will be described by a discrete set of canonical structures, which does not correspond to the existence of a single real molecule." This gives me the sense that you don't understand how a measurement of a quantum mechanical system collapses the wave function, but again, I'm not sure if I am understanding you correctly.
Another thing, you say "This means that the wave function ψ12 (q1, q2) of the system can be represented as the multiplication of the wave functions ψ1 (q1) and ψ2 (q2) of its parts:". You cannot combine wavefunctions like that unless the particles are distinguishable.
In the case of identical fermions, the wavefunction is
The wavefunction for identical bosons looks exactly like the one for the MO and VB theories.
A wavefunction is only as accurate as the Hamiltonian you use for it. If your Hamiltonian doesn't include certain forces that are present in your situation, it isn't going to give you correct results. For example, you cannot describe a helium atom as simply two hydrogen atoms on top of each other. There is a lot more going on than that.
If chemistry doesn't reduce to physics, then what on Earth is going on?
VB, MO and quantum superposition are all concepts close to a century old. If what you are saying is correct, how did all these years go by without someone noticing such a glaring problem?
don't forget that you have an electronic field problem with the field = ∫E cos θdA
Quantum superposition is correct as quantum mechanics in general. Indeed, the MO and VB method conflict with the superposition principle. Sorry, I'm in a hurry, we'll talk later. When I cited Einstein's quote: "God does not play dice," I meant that the further development of quantum mechanics will clarify all the hard-to-understand things of quantum mechanics and everything will be logical and perfect.
Quantum superposition is correct as quantum mechanics in general. Indeed, the MO and VB method conflict with the superposition principle. Sorry, I'm in a hurry, we'll talk later. When I cited Einstein's quote: "God does not play dice," I meant that the further development of quantum mechanics will clarify all the hard-to-understand things of quantum mechanics and everything will be logical and perfect.
Oh okay, thanks for clearing that up. I misunderstood you.
Preface: This is an incredibly convoluted paper and I can't seem to follow your train of thought. It may be due to the fact it was translated.
Let me see if I understand this right. You are trying to use a "contradiction" between quantum superposition and valence bond theory/molecular orbital theory to prove that quantum superposition is wrong? That is what I take from the "God does not play dice" comment. That is totally ass-backwards. If their is a contradiction, it would be proving that VB and MO are wrong, not the other way around, as they are built on quantum mechanics in the first place.
"In chemistry, valence bond (VB) theory is one of two basic theories, along with molecular orbital (MO) theory, that were developed to use the methods of quantum mechanics to explain chemical bonding."
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_bond_theory
I'm not really sure where this contradiction you are claiming is, for one, you say "But then it is obvious that both the MO method and the VB method contradict the principle of quantum superposition. Since the real molecule in the VB method will be described by a discrete set of canonical structures, which does not correspond to the existence of a single real molecule." This gives me the sense that you don't understand how a measurement of a quantum mechanical system collapses the wave function, but again, I'm not sure if I am understanding you correctly.
Another thing, you say "This means that the wave function ψ12 (q1, q2) of the system can be represented as the multiplication of the wave functions ψ1 (q1) and ψ2 (q2) of its parts:". You cannot combine wavefunctions like that unless the particles are distinguishable.
In the case of identical fermions, the wavefunction is
The wavefunction for identical bosons looks exactly like the one for the MO and VB theories.
If chemistry doesn't reduce to physics, then what on Earth is going on?
VB, MO and quantum superposition are all concepts close to a century old. If what you are saying is correct, how did all these years go by without someone noticing such a glaring problem?
To understand the contradiction between the VB theory and the superposition principle, look at this reference (note that the resonance theory is a special case of the VB theory): http://vixra.org/pdf/1702.0333v2.pdf
What is important to understand in chemistry is that the molecule of benzene, the molecule of methane, and any other molecule are single and real. That is, the substance corresponds to a single molecule and a point (there is tautomerism, etc. phenomena in chemistry, but this does not apply to the case). And if in any theory we come to the result that for the description of a substance (that is, a single molecule) there is a selection of discrete structures, this is fundamentally wrong. That's all.
The reality of the molecules (that they exist and we will find out someday their structure) chemists do not doubt for more than 100 years. Previously, chemists have "shared" into two camps: some believe that we will ever know the true structure of molecules (arrangement of atoms, the structure itself), while others categorically rejected and thought that we will never know the true structure of the molecules, notice is never (does not resemble today's quantum mechanics?), and our designations are only conventions that have nothing to do with the "true" structure. And in all two camps there were the greatest minds of mankind who literally created that chemistry that we know and study.
Most logically and systematically outlined the theory of the chemical structure in 1858 (in fact, the structure of organic compounds) Alexander Mikhaylovich Butlerov (Russian chemist-organic). He was an ardent adherent of the fact that we can learn the true structure of molecules, he created a theory, synthesized isomers to confirm his theory, explained very much in organics. Think about those ancient times, acetic acid was represented by almost 20 formulas (one chemical property - one formula, another - another formula, etc., those formulas were not entirely true).
In the MO theory, it is simpler, with the linear combination of AO receiving MO, but the principle of quantum superposition directly prohibits this, that's all.
I will quote:
"It should also be noted that since L. Pauling's resonance theory is a particular case of the VB theory, the
conclusion made about the insuperable conflict of resonance theory with the quantum superposition
principle [4] can be transferred to the VB theory. In the VB method, the wave equations as well as in the
theory of resonance are written for each of the possible electronic structures of the molecule [3] (each of
them is called the canonical structure) and the total function ψ is obtained by summing all conceivable
functions with the corresponding weight coefficients:
ψ = С1ψ1 + С2ψ2 + С3ψ3 + …
where ψ1, ψ2, ψ3 — are wave functions of canonical structures.
In calculations using the MO method, the wave function is represented by a linear combination of
overlapping atomic orbitals [3] (called linear combination of atomic orbitals):
ψ = С1ψ1 + С2ψ2
where ψ1, ψ2 — wave functions of atomic orbitals, and С1, С2 — represent their weight coefficients.
But then it is obvious that both the MO method and the VB method contradict the principle of quantum
superposition. Since the real molecule in the VB method will be described by a discrete set of canonical
structures, which does not correspond to the existence of a single real molecule.
Similarly, in the MO method, the molecular orbital will be described by a discrete set of AO, which also
does not correspond to the provisions of the MO theory. Next, we will carry out a more detailed analysis
of the theory of the VB and the theory of MO." p. 2 http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1.pdf
Now about the multiplication of wave functions: they multiply in the VB theory (here it is essential), but then there will be a description not of molecules of ensembles of atoms for the reasons described in the work.
And yes, the wave function has nothing to do with the electromagnetic field, it's a bit different.
In quantum mechanics, there are no trajectories of particle, there is a principle of uncertainty, and many things are still saving, only a probabilistic picture of the world (in fact, a wave function), all other interpretations were less successful.
In the VB method, the wave equations as well as in the
theory of resonance are written for each of the possible electronic structures of the molecule [3] (each of
them is called the canonical structure)
Not arguing...just noting...I never wrote that the Wave function was the same equation as the Electromagnetic or Electronic field equation that I presented...I wrote that you need to account for the field equation if assuming the premises that you have proposed; I adhere to the theory that electricity (or electromagnetism) is prevalent in every chemical reaction due to what I term "Atomic Friction" at the electron level or "Molecular Friction" at the molecular level...That is why for example the little crustaceans that glow on the beach and in the ocean through, what is popularly termed "Bioluminescence" " chemiluminescence" or "phosphorescence" is actually an atomic "electro-magnetic" reaction happening between luciferin, luciferase, calcium and magnesium ions at an atomic level which is expressed at the molecular level and which is then witnessed with the unaided eye at the structural level...or for example the fact that static electricity happens over both organic and inorganic structures or photovoltaic reaction that can occur outside of a vacuum...
Essentially, my proposal is that the field creates the environment for the wave to exist as thus we have two very similar equations; "" ( copied from Wikipedia by the way ) and Φ = ∫E cos θdA <---although this has slightly more relaxed assumptions and assumes a degree less of conditionality (and yes is traditionally used between two plates and their dipole moments)
and please visit---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemistry ; if you feel so inclined
GuardarGuardar
Last edited by Countess Capital; 04-10-2017 at 04:36 PM..
To understand the contradiction between the VB theory and the superposition principle, look at this reference (note that the resonance theory is a special case of the VB theory): http://vixra.org/pdf/1702.0333v2.pdf
What is important to understand in chemistry is that the molecule of benzene, the molecule of methane, and any other molecule are single and real. That is, the substance corresponds to a single molecule and a point (there is tautomerism, etc. phenomena in chemistry, but this does not apply to the case). And if in any theory we come to the result that for the description of a substance (that is, a single molecule) there is a selection of discrete structures, this is fundamentally wrong. That's all.
The reality of the molecules (that they exist and we will find out someday their structure) chemists do not doubt for more than 100 years. Previously, chemists have "shared" into two camps: some believe that we will ever know the true structure of molecules (arrangement of atoms, the structure itself), while others categorically rejected and thought that we will never know the true structure of the molecules, notice is never (does not resemble today's quantum mechanics?), and our designations are only conventions that have nothing to do with the "true" structure. And in all two camps there were the greatest minds of mankind who literally created that chemistry that we know and study.
Most logically and systematically outlined the theory of the chemical structure in 1858 (in fact, the structure of organic compounds) Alexander Mikhaylovich Butlerov (Russian chemist-organic). He was an ardent adherent of the fact that we can learn the true structure of molecules, he created a theory, synthesized isomers to confirm his theory, explained very much in organics. Think about those ancient times, acetic acid was represented by almost 20 formulas (one chemical property - one formula, another - another formula, etc., those formulas were not entirely true).
In the MO theory, it is simpler, with the linear combination of AO receiving MO, but the principle of quantum superposition directly prohibits this, that's all.
I will quote:
"It should also be noted that since L. Pauling's resonance theory is a particular case of the VB theory, the
conclusion made about the insuperable conflict of resonance theory with the quantum superposition
principle [4] can be transferred to the VB theory. In the VB method, the wave equations as well as in the
theory of resonance are written for each of the possible electronic structures of the molecule [3] (each of
them is called the canonical structure) and the total function ψ is obtained by summing all conceivable
functions with the corresponding weight coefficients:
ψ = С1ψ1 + С2ψ2 + С3ψ3 + …
where ψ1, ψ2, ψ3 — are wave functions of canonical structures.
In calculations using the MO method, the wave function is represented by a linear combination of
overlapping atomic orbitals [3] (called linear combination of atomic orbitals):
ψ = С1ψ1 + С2ψ2
where ψ1, ψ2 — wave functions of atomic orbitals, and С1, С2 — represent their weight coefficients.
But then it is obvious that both the MO method and the VB method contradict the principle of quantum
superposition. Since the real molecule in the VB method will be described by a discrete set of canonical
structures, which does not correspond to the existence of a single real molecule.
Similarly, in the MO method, the molecular orbital will be described by a discrete set of AO, which also
does not correspond to the provisions of the MO theory. Next, we will carry out a more detailed analysis
of the theory of the VB and the theory of MO." p. 2 http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1.pdf
Now about the multiplication of wave functions: they multiply in the VB theory (here it is essential), but then there will be a description not of molecules of ensembles of atoms for the reasons described in the work.
And yes, the wave function has nothing to do with the electromagnetic field, it's a bit different.
In quantum mechanics, there are no trajectories of particle, there is a principle of uncertainty, and many things are still saving, only a probabilistic picture of the world (in fact, a wave function), all other interpretations were less successful.
Not arguing...just noting...I never wrote that the Wave function was the same equation as the Electromagnetic or Electronic field equation that I presented...I wrote that you need to account for the field equation if assuming the premises that you have proposed; I adhere to the theory that electricity (or electromagnetism) is prevalent in every chemical reaction due to what I term "Atomic Friction" at the electron level or "Molecular Friction" at the molecular level...That is why for example the little crustaceans that glow on the beach and in the ocean through, what is popularly termed "Bioluminescence" " chemiluminescence" or "phosphorescence" is actually an atomic "electro-magnetic" reaction happening between luciferin, luciferase, calcium and magnesium ions at an atomic level which is expressed at the molecular level and which is then witnessed with the unaided eye at the structural level and creates an "excited electronic" state...or for example the fact that static electricity happens over both organic and inorganic structures or photovoltaic reactions that can happen outside of a vacuum...
Essentially, my proposal is that the field creates the environment for the wave to exist as thus we have two very similar equations; "" ( copied from Wikipedia by the way ) and Φ = ∫E cos θdA <---although this has slightly more relaxed assumptions and assumes a degree less of conditionality (and yes is traditionally used between two plates and their dipole moments)
and please visit---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemistry ; if you feel so inclined
GuardarGuardarGuardarGuardar
Last edited by Countess Capital; 04-10-2017 at 05:44 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
" ( copied from Wikipedia by the way ) and Φ = ∫E cos θdA <---although this has slightly more relaxed assumptions and assumes a degree less of conditionality (and yes is traditionally used between two plates and their dipole moments)
