It is apparent therefore, that when we speak of a photon possessing a frequency of 500THz, it means exactly that, the electron is absorbing and emitting photons at the rate of 500 trillion photons per second.Don't bother. If you start with an illogical premise, you will only confuse yourself further.
To be continued with your permission???..
Don't bother. If you start with an illogical premise, you will only confuse yourself further.
I presume you are referring to Feynman,No, just to the nonsense you put forward in the sentence I quoted.
"Could quantum theory be wrong?", yes of course it could be wrong, as could any theory. However quantum theory has been stunningly successful in explaining observations and making predictions and to debunk it would require a better theory and I see nothing on the horizon. Quantum theory is counterintuitive and baffling but that in itself does not make it wrong.
When the electron cloud absorbs a photon, the subsequent emission of a photon doesn't necessarily obey the law of reflection (angle of incidence = angle of reflection.) The same applies to refraction because the process of absorption and emission involves transitions between quantum energy levels within the atom, which can occur in any direction.This is just a strawman argument since the absorption and emission of photons from electrons is not how refraction or reflection are explained.
Also, the unrealistic scenario of where an incoming photon with a wave-length of 500 nm is supposed to be absorbed by an electron that is 5.6 billion times smaller than itself. How is it possible?
That this is indeed the case can be seen in the working of atomic clocks that depend on the oscillation of the fine structure valence electrons in the Caesium 130 atomCaesium 130 barely exists.
Also, the unrealistic scenario of where an incoming photon with a wave-length of 500 nm is supposed to be absorbed by an electron that is 5.6 billion times smaller than itself. How is it possible? TI have a portable radio which is able to receive long wave broadcasts with a wavelength of 1500 metres or so.
It is apparent therefore, that when we speak of a photon possessing a frequency of 500THz, it means exactly that, the electron is absorbing and emitting photons at the rate of 500 trillion photons per second.We are not.
There is more, a lot more to this theory.And apparently you don't understand a bit of it.
So are you saying that you think a photon with the wavelength of 500 nm is 500 nm long or something?
I guess in your world that means that a photon in the radio wavelength region can be a meter in length or more??
Those would be some mighty big photons...
It gets even more absurd if you do the same simplistic maths with visible light.
So it's clear that you do not understand what's going on.
There seems to be a consensus, in the scientific community that regardless of the complexities involved in Standard Theory, that the mathematics used is so brilliant that, the theory cannot possibly, ever be wrong. This, in spite of many illogicalities and oversights.You might like to watch this video. Laypersons might not be aware of the problems discussed there.
Quantum electrodynamics is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. This precision is all based on a single experimental value - the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron called the g-factor. In this episode, I want to examine a paper by Oliver Consa who examines the very suspicious coincidences, errors, mathematical inconsistencies and renormalisation infinities which have been swept under the rug.I'd also like to read the other's comments or counter points on it.
00:00 Introduction
01:54 Manhattan Project
03:46 Dirac's equation
04:38 Quantum Field Theory and Ignoring Infinities
05:57 Shelter Island Conference
07:43 Bethe's Lamb Shift
08:19 Schwinger factor
09:50 2nd Conference
12:08 Dyson's Unification
13:55 3rd Conference
15:40 Dyson points out divergence after normalisation
16:31 Doctoring theoretical value to match experiment
18:04 Coefficient rabbit hole
24:12 Muon's g-factor problem
25:14 Fudging the electron g-factor
26:24 Final remarks
Quantum theory consists of a mathematical formalism together with a vast amount of information concerning how to apply that formalism to electrons, atoms, radiation, field, etc. As an instrument for predicting the results of experiments, it is enormously successful. However, despite this, it says little if anything about the electrons, and such that produce the results. From its inception, it has been a theory in search of an interpretation. In this episode, we will explore the origins of the quantum world as well as understand what the Copenhagen Interpretation is.
00:00 Introduction
00:31 Origin of the Quantum World
05:37 Copenhagen Interpration
08:07 Copenhagen High Principles
09:55 Problems with the Interpretation
The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics embraces the idea that there are no deterministic hidden variables that give rise to the probabilities of the quantum world. This means that it is not generally possible to predict the outcome of any measurement with certainty and the there is no deeper reality hidden beneath quantum mechanics which could predict the outcome of each measurement with certainty.
But there are other theories that embrace determinism and that seek out these hidden variables.
00:00 Introduction
00:52 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen padadox
02:56 Bohm's variation of the paradox
05:06 Bell's Theorem
06:40 Many Worlds Interpretation
10:50 Stochastic Mechanics
11:59 Pilot-wave Theory
16:34 Fluid Experiments showing Pilot-wave
QuoteIn this episode, I want to examine a paper by Oliver Consa who examines the very suspicious coincidences, errors, mathematical inconsistencies and renormalisation infinities which have been swept under the rug.
Consa tells us that Dyson said that the Heisenberg S-matrix could be used to calculate the electron?s g-factor, transforming it into the Dyson series. It was an infinite series of powers of alpha, where each coefficient could be calculated by solving a certain number of Feynman diagrams. Consa also tells us that enthusiasm returned to the American scientific community, but that some were critical. Like Paul Dirac, who said ?How then do they manage with these incorrect equations? These equations lead to infinities when one tries to solve them; these infinities ought not to be there?. And Robert Oppenheimer, who thought ?that this quantum electrodynamics of Schwinger and Feynman was just another misguided attempt to patch up old ideas with fancy mathematics?. Another critic was Enrico Fermi who said this: ?There are two ways of doing calculations in theoretical physics. One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the process you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and self-consistent mathematical formalism. You have neither?. Well said Enrico.Leading scientists often disagree with each other, but they are rarely mentioned in textbooks.
Look a bit closer, I had mentioned a frequency of 500 THz not a wavelength of 500 nm,Really? It seems that you don't remember what you wrote, let me refresh your memory:
Also, the unrealistic scenario of where an incoming photon with a wave-length of 500 nm is supposed to be absorbed by an electron that is 5.6 billion times smaller than itself.If you look closely I think you will agree that you did in fact mention a 500 nm wave length....
Quantum electrodynamics is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. This precision is all based on a single experimental value - the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron called the g-factor. In this episode, I want to examine a paper by Oliver Consa who examines the very suspicious coincidences, errors, mathematical inconsistencies and renormalisation infinities which have been swept under the rug.
If you look closely I think you will agree that you did in fact mention a 500 nm wave length....
What difference does it make?It is hard to have an honest discussion with someone who makes a statement and then denies they made that statement.
I don't see what you are getting at.Here is what I am getting at. You said:
Also, the unrealistic scenario of where an incoming photon with a wave-length of 500 nm is supposed to be absorbed by an electron that is 5.6 billion times smaller than itself. How is it possible?You seemed to be saying a 500 nm photon is 'to big' to be absorbed by an electron, which is wrong and silly. Perhaps I was mistaken about what you meant. So is there some other reason you said, "How is this possible?"
You seemed to be saying a 500 nm photon is 'to big' to be absorbed by an electron, which is wrong and silly. Perhaps I was mistaken about what you meant. So is there some other reason you said, "How is this possible?"
"Absorbed by an electron" is one root of his many misconceptions.
Yes, 500 nm photon is nowhere near 5.6 billion times bigger, more like 168 million times bigger.There is no such thing as a photon having a size of 500 nm. A photon with a wave length of 500 nm is not 500 nm long. I'm not sure where you got that idea but you should discard it as soon as possible
A photon with a wave length of 500 nm is not 500 nm long.How does it supposed to be interpreted?
How does it supposed to be interpreted?Photons have a frequency. That frequency is the rate at which the magnetic and electric field of the photon oscillate from a maximum to a minimum and back to a maximum. The higher the frequency the higher the energy carried by the photon. A photon with a wave length of 500nm means the photon has a frequency of about 6 x 10^14 cycles per second.
Yes, 500 nm photon is nowhere near 5.6 billion times bigger, more like 168 million times bigger.There is no such thing as a photon having a size of 500 nm. A photon with a wave length of 500 nm is not 500 nm long. I'm not sure where you got that idea but you should discard it as soon as possible
That frequency is the rate at which the magnetic and electric field of the photon oscillate from a maximum to a minimum and back to a maximum.FYI, circularly polarized light has a constant amplitude of electric field when propagating as a plane wave. Only the orientation rotates.
Wavelength does seem to matter in certain situationsSure wave length / frequency matters, it just has nothing to do with the size of a photon. The wave length is about the oscillating magnetic and electric fields of the photon it has nothing to do with the size or length of a photon.
FYI, circularly polarized light has a constant amplitude of electric field when propagating as a plane wave. Only the orientation rotates.Which has nothing to do with this discussion, please don't bring in unrelated topics just to confuse yourself.
This, in spite of many illogicalities and oversights.I get it, you don't like Quantum physics it's too weird.
How does it supposed to be interpreted?You asked this question and I answered it. As typical you then jumped to a new subject without acknowledging the answer provided. So I'm just curious did you accept the answer or reject it?
Light only travels at c through vacuum. In other media, it travels slower, and the wavelength reduced accordingly, with the same frequency. It does have something to do with length, as the name correctly suggests.How does it supposed to be interpreted?Photons have a frequency. That frequency is the rate at which the magnetic and electric field of the photon oscillate from a maximum to a minimum and back to a maximum. The higher the frequency the higher the energy carried by the photon. A photon with a wave length of 500nm means the photon has a frequency of about 6 x 10^14 cycles per second.
Therefore this means when when a photon has traveled the distance of 500nm the magnetic and electric fields will have completed one cycle (such as a maximum to maximum). So the wave length has absolutely nothing to do with the size or length of the photon, it only addresses the rate of the oscillating fields.
Light only travels at c through vacuum. In other media, it travels slower, and the wavelength reduced accordingly, with the same frequency. It does have something to do with length, as the name correctly suggests.I contend that you are 100% wrong.
You can do the experiment yourself. Don't depend too much on the authority.Light only travels at c through vacuum. In other media, it travels slower, and the wavelength reduced accordingly, with the same frequency. It does have something to do with length, as the name correctly suggests.I contend that you are 100% wrong.
Please supply any reputable source (not a youtube) that says the size of a photon has anything to do with the wave length of the photon.
You can do the experiment yourself.So you couldn't find any citations that support your idea that the frequency of a photon's magnetic and electric fields somehow dictate it's size. Imagine my surprise.
Don't depend too much on the authority.Don't worry yourself, I don't. I suppose you don't go to the doctor when your sick because that would be appealing to authority? ;D ::)
You can learn about metamaterials, and you'll find that their unit sizes depend on the wavelength of the light or electromagnetic wave.You can do the experiment yourself.So you couldn't find any citations that support your idea that the frequency of a photon's magnetic and electric fields somehow dictate it's size. Imagine my surprise.Don't depend too much on the authority.Don't worry yourself, I don't. I suppose you don't go to the doctor when your sick because that would be appealing to authority? ;D ::)
Why do you enjoy being complete confused about everything scientific?
What I wrote about the nonexistent relationship between a photon size and it's wavelength is correct. I realize that if you accepted that it would decrease your confusion and I guess that would make you unhappy or something. Odd.
A photon doesn't have a size. It is a mathematical concept: an infinitesimal massless blob travelling at speed c with no other properties than energy and momentum.How does it interact with Faraday cages and metamaterials?
But experiments clearly show that wavelength of EM waves determines their size of influence in space.Great. Could you please provide a link to one of these experiments?
Great. Could you please provide a link to one of these experiments?
wavelength of EM waves determines their size of influence in space.No. Astronomers measure pretty much the entire spectrum from ULF (10 Hz or so) to GeV gamma radiation, all coming from umpteen billion light years away.
You should understand that I referred to transversal size, not length. Why microwave is trapped inside microwave oven, while visible light can escape through the metal mesh?wavelength of EM waves determines their size of influence in space.No. Astronomers measure pretty much the entire spectrum from ULF (10 Hz or so) to GeV gamma radiation, all coming from umpteen billion light years away.
But experiments clearly show that wavelength of EM waves determines their size of influence in space.Great. Could you please provide a link to one of these experiments?
in video#7 we try to determine the size of photon, which is thought to be the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, including microwave. We use two metal plates to create a single slit with adjustable width.
Determination of "photon size" is continued in video#8, using multiple slitSpoiler: show
I have uploaded a new video trying to show the blocking mechanism of microwave by various arrangements of conducting material. Those arrangements are modified versions of microwave polarizer used in previous videos.Spoiler: show
And my explanation for the result we get in previous video is shown hereSpoiler: show
Here is the supporting evidence for the explanation given in previous video about microwave blocking mechanism using a model of antenna as receiver and transmitter at once, and followed by superposition principle.
No problem, just look at the door on any microwave oven, a fine grating or mesh is provided. Usually the mesh is much smaller than the microwave radiation that is being shielded or about 1mm in size is normal as compared to the 12 cm size microwave.
You should understand that I referred to transversal size, not length. Why microwave is trapped inside microwave oven, while visible light can escape through the metal mesh?These guys have no idea what they are talking about, that is, there ideas are made up in there own minds without evidence. I just want anyone reading this to understand that these 2 posters are doing pseudoscience.
Photons, unlike most objects, don't have a well-defined size in the way a marble or a car does. They behave differently depending on the situation. Here's how we think about it:
Point-like: In some interactions, photons seem to act like point-like particles. They can be absorbed or emitted entirely by tiny targets, even smaller than an atom's nucleus.
Wavelength-related size: From a wave perspective, a photon's "size" is related to its wavelength. The wavelength is the distance between peaks in the wave. We can talk about a photon's "effective size" based on its wavelength, but it's not a physical size in the same way a marble is big.
It's important to note that photons are force carriers, not little balls of light. They carry energy and momentum, but their existence is more about the electromagnetic field than a physical object.
Here are a couple of research papers you can look into regarding the size and shape of a photon:Searching further in the journal, I found this.
Electromagnetic fields, size, and copy of a single photon arXiv: arxiv.org:1604.03869 explores the concept of a photon's shape depending on its energy. It delves into how a photon might resemble a thin stick or a plate based on specific conditions.
The Size and Shape of a Single Photon Scientific Research Publishing: www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=10928 discusses the concept of effective size based on wavelength and the limitations of assigning a strict size to a photon.
When we talk about a photon, we specify a frequency/wavelength and direction and position, but its physical size is typically not mentioned. It is the atom or molecule that sets the cross-section for a photon interaction not the photon itself. Given this gap in the physics of photons, we have explored here the question of the size/width of a photon perpendicular to its direction of propagation?defined as the size of a hole that will pass the photon with at least 90% probability.
When asked about the size of photons, Gemini answered:I have no idea who Gemini is, I was wondering what you think.
Here are a couple of research papers you can look into regarding the size and shape of a photon:
Electromagnetic fields, size, and copy of a single photon arXiv: arxiv.org:1604.03869 explores the concept of a photon's shape depending on its energy. It delves into how a photon might resemble a thin stick or a plate based on specific conditions.
The Size and Shape of a Single Photon Scientific Research Publishing: www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=10928 discusses the concept of effective size based on wavelength and the limitations of assigning a strict size to a photon.
Electromagnetic fields, size, and copy of a single photon arXiv: arxiv.org:1604.03869 explores the concept of a photon's shape depending on its energy. It delves into how a photon might resemble a thin stick or a plate based on specific conditions.Here's the abstraction.
Photons are almost involved in each field of science and daily life of everyone. However, there are still some fundamental and puzzling questions such as what a photon is.The expressions of electromagnetic fields of a photon are here proposed. On the basis of the present expressions, we calculate the energy, momentum, and spin angular momentum of a photon, derive the relations between the photon size and wavelength, and reveal the differences between a photon and its copy. The results show that the present expressions properly describe the particle characteristics of a photon; the length of a photon is half of the wavelength, and the radius is proportional to square root of the wavelength; a photon can ionize a hydrogen atom at the ground state only if its radius is less than the Bohr radius; a photon and its copy have the phase difference of {\pi} and constitute a phase-entangled photon pair; the phase-entangled n-photon train results from the sequential stimulated emissions and belongs to the Fock state. A laser beam is an ensemble of the n-photon trains and belongs to the coherent state. The threshold power of a laser is equal to the power of the n-photon train. These provide a bridge between the wave theory of light and quantum optics and will further advance research and application of the related fields.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03869
This video is actually not about photon size but about coherence length. In this video I discuss the behavior of electromagnetic radiation, especially the aspect of interference. The experiment shows that there is no such thing as individual photons in EM radiation. The photon only exists as an energy exchange between radiation and matter.
0:00 General Intro
0:47 What do others say?
1:21 About wavelength and size
2:10 Interference in light
3:08 Electromagnetic waves and detection
5:25 Things that make you go Hmmm...
7:36 New experiment and setup
10:23 Calculation of single photon level (boring)
11:59 Result of the new experiment
12:41 Discussion of the result
16:29 About "shot noise"
17:16 EM field strength and probability of detection
19:18 So how big is it then?
20:02 Deleted scene
At 3:08 the Electric and Magnetic field components have been swapped accidentally.
The experiment shows that there is no such thing as individual photons in EM radiation.And yet we can count them!
Why microwave is trapped inside microwave oven, while visible light can escape through the metal mesh?Wavelength.
On the basis of the present expressions, we calculate the energy, momentum, and spin angular momentum of a photon, derive the relations between the photon size and wavelength, and reveal the differences between a photon and its copy.
On the basis of the present expressions, we calculate the energy, momentum, and spin angular momentum of a photon, derive the relations between the photon size and wavelength, and reveal the differences between a photon and its copy.
the length of a photon is half of the wavelength, and the radius is proportional to square root of the wavelength; a photon can ionize a hydrogen atom at the ground state only if its radius is less than the Bohr radius; a photon and its copy have the phase difference of {\pi} and constitute a phase-entangled photon pair;
The experiment shows that there is no such thing as individual photons in EM radiation.Well I guess Einstein's estate will have to return his Nobel prize then. I mean who should we believe, every university that has a physics department or a random Youtube, wait!! I know we can ask a chatbot... ::)
How do you count them?The experiment shows that there is no such thing as individual photons in EM radiation.And yet we can count them!
Do you mean longer wavelength means larger effective size?Why microwave is trapped inside microwave oven, while visible light can escape through the metal mesh?Wavelength.
I am sure some idiot will point out that mice can escape through the bars of an elephant's cage because they are smaller, but mammals cannot self-propagate in a vacuum because they are not electromagnetic radiation. Beware of false analogies. If it stinks, it is probably philosophy, not science.
This means that, in a sense, it doesn't ″experience″ its own motion.Do you mean it has no beginning nor end?
Obviously, Maxwell′s equations do not explain everything in a conclusive manner, for if they did there would be no need for quantum mechanics to introduce all these stages.Agreed. If Maxwell equations in Heavyside's notation are examined, they don't seem to accommodate quantization of electric charge and mass. They don't even mention mass in the first place. These clearly show that they are incomplete as description of physical reality. Something needs to be added.
How do you count them?With a Photomultiplier.
Do you mean longer wavelength means larger effective size?Beware of false analogies, like I said.
The question that has to be asked is, why deny it? A question arising out of this one, is, does it work? Does it provide an alternative? If the answer to both these questions is negative, why insist on having these theories? Is it to prove that the theory works or that it doesn't or to state as has happened here that there are two theories one that works and one that doesn′t.Theories are still kept as long as it's useful in making predictions. Even when we know it's not an accurate model of reality. Gemini explains.
Aristotle divided the universe into two distinct realms based on their material composition and movement:
Terrestrial Realm: This is our world, the Earth and everything on it. According to Aristotle, terrestrial objects are composed of four elements: earth, water, air, and fire. These elements have intrinsic properties that cause their natural movements. For example, earth and water tend to fall downwards, while air and fire rise upwards. These objects are also subject to change and decay.
Celestial Realm: This is the realm beyond the Earth, encompassing the stars, planets, and the moon. In contrast to the terrestrial realm, celestial objects are made of a fifth element, aether. Aether is an unchangeable and perfect substance, unlike the four elements. This difference in material explains why celestial objects move in a fundamentally different way. They move in perfect circles at constant speeds, unlike the rectilinear (straight line) movements of terrestrial objects. These motions are also considered eternal and unchanging.
Is the effective size independent from wavelength?Do you mean longer wavelength means larger effective size?Beware of false analogies, like I said.
Well I guess Einstein's estate will have to return his Nobel prize then.Do you think that Nobel committee is infallible?
I mean who should we believe, every university that has a physics department or a random Youtube, wait!! I know we can ask a chatbot...It should depend on the evidence.
The simple version of the statement ''The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge'', is that ?It simply states that ignoring may not harm you as much as partial or incomplete knowledge may do?
It should depend on the evidenceWhy do you think every university teaches that?? It's because of the evidence supports it.
New evidence keep coming. What became a consensus in the past may change in the future, when new evidence against it get harder to ignore.It should depend on the evidenceWhy do you think every university teaches that?? It's because of the evidence supports it.
All you seem to do is criticize theories and concepts that you don't understand. It's too bad you came into this thread disrupted it, I guess this goes on ignore like your other threads...
If Maxwell equations in Heavyside's notation are examined, they don't seem to accommodate quantization of electric charge and mass. They don't even mention mass in the first place.Probably because electromagnetic radiation has neither charge nor mass.
These clearly show that they are incomplete as description of physical reality.Nor do they explain or describe an elephant. So what?
How much is enough? You could direct all the money, material and intellect of the entire world to search for a flaw in the hypothesis that the hydrogen atom consists of one proton and one electron, but what benefit would accrue from doing so?Something larger than zero.
It's pretty well explained in most chemistry textbooks, and sufficiently understood for the purposes of chemical engineering.Do you have an example?
What's more interesting is to explain how protons and electrons interact to form diatomic molecules, instead of monoatomic, or polyatomic ones.
It seems like the mystery is in people's minds. How they think that there's no mystery in how invisible hydrogen atoms and molecules behave, while at the same time think that macroscopic double slit experiment contains the deepest mystery of physical reality.What's more interesting is to explain how protons and electrons interact to form diatomic molecules, instead of monoatomic, or polyatomic ones.
There's no mystery to that.
Which people? We know how atoms and molecules behave - it's called chemistry. And we know how light behaves - physics. Sensible folk use mathematical models to predict the outcome of new experiments - science. And when the prediction turns out wrong, we modify the model.Many modern physicists like Feynman.
Perhaps you are confusing philosophers with intelligent beings.
It seems like the mystery is in people's minds. How they think that there's no mystery in how invisible hydrogen atoms and molecules behave, while at the same time think that macroscopic double slit experiment contains the deepest mystery of physical reality.
We know why protons and electrons arrange themselves into diatomic molecules instead of single atoms or larger molecules given particular circumstances.Can it be described in a single paragraph?
No, there isn't a single equation in classical chemistry that predicts exactly how many atoms will bond together to form a molecule like H2. However, there are fundamental principles and calculations in quantum mechanics that can explain why hydrogen forms a diatomic molecule (H2) and why some elements form single atoms or larger molecules.
Here's why a simple equation isn't enough:
Quantum mechanics rules the game: The behavior of electrons at the atomic level is governed by the principles of quantum mechanics. These principles describe the probabilistic nature of electrons occupying orbitals around the nucleus.
Can it be described in a single paragraph?
For one, a pair of protons isn't going to randomly join together to form a single nucleus because the Coulomb barrier is too strong to overcome at common temperatures and pressures. So they remain separate. The number of nuclei dictates the total number of atoms. The electrons then arrange themselves in the lowest energy configuration around those nuclei.
I asked Gemini, Is there any equation predicting that hydrogen will produce diatomic molecules?Why not try asking a textbook, or a scientist?
Gemini has read various publicly available online sources, and can make conclusions accordingly. It answers specific questions almost immediately, including the follow up.I asked Gemini, Is there any equation predicting that hydrogen will produce diatomic molecules?Why not try asking a textbook, or a scientist?
Your first answer hasn't involved Pauli's principle, which means it hasn't correctly explain why hydrogen atoms automatically form diatomic molecules.Can it be described in a single paragraph?
I did here:For one, a pair of protons isn't going to randomly join together to form a single nucleus because the Coulomb barrier is too strong to overcome at common temperatures and pressures. So they remain separate. The number of nuclei dictates the total number of atoms. The electrons then arrange themselves in the lowest energy configuration around those nuclei.
The Pauli exclusion principle goes a long way towards telling you how those electrons will be arranged, as you can't have more than two electrons per orbital (electrons are fermions, so no two of them can have identical quantum numbers).
Gemini has read various publicly available online sources, and can make conclusions accordingly. It answers specific questions almost immediatelyimmediately, including the follow up.and has given you a couple of paragraphs of bullshit.
Textbooks typically don't answer specific questions.Those we quoted answer the question you posed.
Scientists typically don't answer specific questions from strangers.But that's how I make my living! Every new client begins as a stranger with a question, and in the fulness of time becomes a friend with an answer.
What is molecular orbital theory and how does it work? Are you confused about frontier orbitals, HOMO and LUMOs? These concepts and more are explained with examples and animations.Textbooks have limitations related to its static and 2 dimensional properties. They also tend to oversimplify things.
Not the textbooks I read as an undergraduate. I acquired a usefully explanatory and predictive knowledge of molecular orbitals and some of my contemporaries went on to design and synthesise useful molecules for a living. You can write an n-dimensional equation on a piece of paper with no problem.Which textbooks did you read?
So far, the only relevant AI output you have quoted in this thread was wrong.Is this statement by Gemini wrong?
No, there isn't a single equation in classical chemistry that predicts exactly how many atoms will bond together to form a molecule like H2.What's the correct equation?