Reductionism: Physics-Chemistry-Biology

[Yllanes]

Perhaps an example can shed some light.

Consider nuclear physics. Atomic nuclei are made of nucleons (protons and neutrons), which themselves are made of quarks. We want to study the interaction between nucleons and instantly find that it is a very difficult problem. The force is not central, it depends on spin, isobaric spin, velocity, etc. We know this from experimental facts about two-nucleon systems. The problem is so difficult that we attemp a phenomenological explanation. We set some conditions

• The interaction potential must be Poincaré invariant (remain the same after translations, rotations, etc.)
• Invariant under parity transformations.
• Invariant under time reversal.

Which we must reconcile with some empirical facts

• The interaction depends on spin.
• It also depends on isospin.
• The force is not central
• The force depends on velocity.
• Charge symmetric and even charge independent (at least as a first approximation).
• Repulsive at very short distances.

And we try to write an interaction potential, such as
[latex]
\[V = V_1(r) + V_2(r)\ \vec\sigma_1\cdot\vec\sigma_2 + V_2(r)\ \vec \tau_1\cdot\vec \tau_2 + V_3 (r) (\vec\sigma_1\cdot\vec\sigma_2) (\vec \tau_1\cdot\vec \tau_2) + V_4(r) \vec L\cdot\vec S+ \ldots\]
[/latex]

With this potential we can study the interaction between nucleons (it typically has as much as 14 or 18 terms). We have not explicitly used the fact that the nucleons are made of quarks, or the SM description of the strong force. In this example of a very simple system (one proton and a neutron), we can use those facts to get some idea of the shape of the several V(r) terms, studying some equations from quantum field theory. For example, modelling the interaction with the exchange of a pion (a particle consisting of a quark and an antiquark with zero spin), we can arrive at a tensorial term that describes the interactions at 'long' distances pretty well ('long' is ~1.5·10^-15 m).

For an iron, oxygen, or any other nucleus with more than two nucleons such a fundamental description is completely impossible. We have to use several semiempirical models, mean field approximations, etc. We certainly can't solve the Schrödinger equation for the system of protons and nucleons, much less use QFT to describe what all the quarks are doing. Yet nobody, I think, denies that the strong and EM interactions of the SM are ultimately what determines the dynamics of the system.

If we couldn't solve the Schödinger equation for a single atomic nucleus, we obviously can't do it for a chemical reaction or a whole ecosystem. To study those things we have to start somewhere else. But even if we have to start somewhere else in any human description of the system, the fundamental forces studied by physics are, practically by definition, all that's happening underneath.

Of course, should we eventually achieve an unified theory of the 4 interactions (the Theory of Everything...) we would not get any closer to explaining natural selection or how to make a good cheese. Some people think this fact makes the previous explanation meaningless and claim that because of it, physics cannot explain chemistry or biology, etc. My opinion is that physics can, by definition, explain them. But the problem is certainly beyond the reach of our human theories of physics. At which point the discussion turns into a semantic question and I couldn't care less.

 

[DeviousB]

The claim that physics comes from mathematics is silly, IMHO. Physicists use mathematics as a tool, but I don't think there is anyone of them who claims that physics is a subset of mathematics or that the laws of physics are somehow reducible to pure mathematical abstractions. They use mathematics for as far as it has real world applications, but mathematicians don't necessarily concern themselves with the real world (at least in their work).

Um, just a minute...

If it is NOT reducible, then that means that no matter how complex we make our physical simulation, it would not match reality. And that cannot happen unless there is some process going on which does NOT obey physics as we understand it, but actually violates it. While that might be possible (I can't prove that natural selection is reducible, and we cannot construct such massively complex models to test them against reality), there is no evidence that any such processes actually occur (ie, there's no reason to think it isn't reducible).

Surely, if similarly, if no part of physics does NOT obey the rules of mathematics or actually violates them, then physics is reducible to maths under your own definition?

 

[DeviousB]

I can't see it myself.

Physics is a tool frequently used by biologists, big deal. But Ziggurat seems to be arguing some sort of ontological reductionism I can't fathom.

As a (former) biologist, I used all sorts of math tools my physicist girlfriend had never heard of, and vice versa. Methodologically, biology can't reduce to physics because some of the theories and concepts of biology are mathematically distinct from the mathematical basis of physics.

Biological concepts such as Evolutionarily Stable Strategies, etc. which form an essential part of our understanding of large swathes of biology are based on game theory. To my knowledge no part of physics is. Physics can no more model an ESS than it can model chess.

 

[Ziggurat]

Surely, if similarly, if no part of physics does NOT obey the rules of mathematics or actually violates them, then physics is reducible to maths under your own definition?

No, it is not, because as I already stated math cannot distinguish WHICH self-consistent theories actually conform to reality. It's quite easy to come up with theories which do not, yet remain mathematically self-consistent. Mathematical self-consistency is believed to be a necessary requirement of any good physical theory, but it is most certainly NOT sufficient. There's only one way to determine which self-consistent model(s) correspond to reality: actual experimentation. And once you start doing actual experiments, you're no longer doing math, but science.

 

[Yllanes]

Surely, if similarly, if no part of physics does NOT obey the rules of mathematics or actually violates them, then physics is reducible to maths under your own definition?

Think of it this way: In mathematics we have several axioms, with which we build analysis, algebra, etc.

In physics, at the most fundamental level, you can start QFT by taking all of mathematics as given and adding several extra axioms that are not contained within mathematics. For example:

• Microcausality.
• Asymptotic completeness.
• Eigenvalues of P lying on the closure of the future light cone.

If you drop or change any of these axioms, you can make theories that are perfectly consistent form a mathematical point of view. If we drop the last one, we can have tachyons, particles going faster than light. It is possible to construct a QFT for free tachyons that works mathematically. But they are unphysical. From a different point of view: the elementary particles are irreducible representations of the Poincaré group. If we classify all the mathematically possible representations we find that some of them have imaginary mass or continuous spin. Mathematics by itself can say nothing of whether they exist or not. Experiments, observations are the only way of showing that they are unphysical.

On a different scenario. The mathematics of differential geometry describes gravitation. But we also need Einstein's equations, to show which is the precise relation between energy and geometry. Other equations are mathematically sound. Even starting from Einstein's equations, mathematics cannot tell the whole story. Assuming isotropy and homogeneity mathematics shows that there are only three possible shapes for the universe and that it can recollapse, be static or expand indefinitely. Physics is what determines which one of those possibilities is the real one, etc.

But in principle, a sufficiently sophisticated set of axioms for the fundamental theories of physics would describe anything at whatever scale. It will never be realised by humans, but there is no jump between physics and chemistry of the same nature as the one between mathematics and physics.

 

[Schneibster]

Just so we're all on the same page here, I own a book called Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids, "The Physics of the Chemical Bond." ISBN 0-486-66021-4, by Walter A. Harrison.

I think stating that we cannot derive the physical properties of substances from the physics of their atomic structures is basically disproven by the mere existence of this book. I'll point out that it is a textbook in the physical chemistry curriculum, which also tends to shoot down the assertion that physical chemistry isn't based on physics.

In case there are questions about what characteristics this is capable of predicting, it turns out that this book shows how spectra, hardness, melting point, elasticity, piezoelectricity, surface roughness, and specific heat can be derived from the electronic structure of the atoms that make up a solid. The author hints that we are near to being able to describe many other characteristics of materials, and near to being able to describe the characteristics of liquids as well. The second edition is copyright 1989- eighteen years ago. I suspect that a great deal has been found out since then.

So tell me again that chemistry isn't based on physics.

 

[Slimething]

So tell me again that chemistry isn't based on physics.

OK. Chemistry is not based on physics. Your move.

Just so we're all on the same page here, I own a book called Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids, "The Physics of the Chemical Bond." ISBN 0-486-66021-4, by Walter A. Harrison.

I think stating that we cannot derive the physical properties of substances from the physics of their atomic structures is basically disproven by the mere existence of this book.

Just like the existence of a Bermuda Triangle is confirmed by vonDanniken's (sp?) repertoire. But, let's presupposed that Harrison wrote a book about the physics of the chemical bond. Does that imply that there is more to a chemical bond than physics? Otherwise, the title would be "The Chemical Bond", no?

I'll point out that it is a textbook in the physical chemistry curriculum, which also tends to shoot down the assertion that physical chemistry isn't based on physics.

Un, no. It's called physical chemistry because the subject deals with the behavior of particles. It's not called physical chemistry because physicists were just too busy to teach the subject. Physical education and physical plants also have nothing to do with physics.

In case there are questions about what characteristics this is capable of predicting, it turns out that this book shows how spectra, hardness, melting point, elasticity, piezoelectricity, surface roughness, and specific heat can be derived from the electronic structure of the atoms that make up a solid.

Wow, hey, that's a lot of stuff! Does he give examples of is he merely postulating? I've seen and used the models that predict polarity, some types of spectra, and the like but I have not seen any so far that go anywhere near this far. Care to post a successfully modeled melting point from the book? Surface roughness would be a neat thing also as one can make most materials smooth or rough so I can't see that that characteristic could be predicted from the chemical bonding.

I've done a search to try and find a scientific review of the book but was unsuccessful. I did find quite a few articles that cited the book as a source but none of them had anything to do with modeling the physical characteristics of complex substances from the known physics of the bonding. But, hey, schneib, if the book makes those claims and they're true, you sure got a bargain for $17! That kinda stuff would normally cost thousands and earn the author a Nobel. No kiddin!

I suspect that a great deal has been found out since then.

You've seen my challenges to pgwethold. Why don't you do them?

 

[Schneibster]

Just like the existence of a Bermuda Triangle is confirmed by vonDanniken's (sp?) repertoire.

That you compare anything by that idiot with a textbook says everything about you that I care to know: you are no friend of the truth.

 

[Schneibster]

Just so we don't have to listen to any more of this horsepucky.

But, let's presupposed that Harrison wrote a book about the physics of the chemical bond.

He didn't. You can tell that from the title.

Does that imply that there is more to a chemical bond than physics?

What "more" do you suppose there would be? Little fairies that hold the little atomies together? Perhaps you think there's micro-glue holding them together. Or maybe you think von Daniken is doing it.

Otherwise, the title would be "The Chemical Bond", no?

Maybe if it was a book about chemical bonds. Which, given the title, it obviously isn't.

Un, no. It's called physical chemistry because the subject deals with the behavior of particles.

Whaaaaaaaaat? Are you actually this dumb, or is this some sort of joke?

It's not called physical chemistry because physicists were just too busy to teach the subject.

I don't even know what this means, and I'm growing more and more certain you don't either.

Physical education and physical plants also have nothing to do with physics.

And this is relevant because...?

Wow, hey, that's a lot of stuff! Does he give examples of is he merely postulating?

Why don't you read it and find out. It's a textbook. You might be able to learn something, if you can put down the bong long enough.

I've seen and used the models that predict polarity, some types of spectra, and the like but I have not seen any so far that go anywhere near this far.

That would be because you had an acid trip and THOUGHT you were a real chemist?

Care to post a successfully modeled melting point from the book?

How about a whole table of them? It's the appendix, and it's called the Solid State Table of the Elements.

Surface roughness would be a neat thing also as one can make most materials smooth or rough so I can't see that that characteristic could be predicted from the chemical bonding.

You don't know very much about solid-state physics, do you? Of course, you don't know very much about chemistry, either, so I guess that's no surprise.

I've done a search to try and find a scientific review of the book but was unsuccessful.

It's on the physics 601/602 book list at Rutgers. You might also want to have a look at the course materials for the Methods of Electronic Structure Theory in Materials Science class at the Materials Research Laboratory at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the citations in some pretty recent papers in Physical Review Letters and so forth. Then there's Purdue University's course Nanomaterials Chemistry and Engineering, Chem 697M, which also has it on the book list. Overall, in the first two pages of hits from google, I found eight college courses and five citations in the peer-reviewed literature.

Either you're really lousy at using google, or you're high on gasoline. Or perhaps, as I originally suggested, you're no friend of the truth.

I did find quite a few articles that cited the book as a source but none of them had anything to do with modeling the physical characteristics of complex substances from the known physics of the bonding.

What "known physics of the bonding?" Having a little trouble with the whole reading comprehension thing there, sport? Looks that way. Because whatever you're talkin about, it has pretty much zip to do with this conversation.

But, hey, schneib, if the book makes those claims and they're true, you sure got a bargain for $17! That kinda stuff would normally cost thousands and earn the author a Nobel. No kiddin!

Listen, put the bong down and pay attention. You're talking about a book that's being used in current curriculum university physics and chemistry classes, get it?

You've seen my challenges to pgwethold. Why don't you do them?

No, actually I hadn't- I don't generally pay you much attention, the kind of crap you posted here is pretty much of the same type as most of the drivel you post, and I don't bother reading it much. It's not really worthwhile, and to top it all off, you'll do ANYTHING, including lie, to "prove you're right." It doesn't prove anything but that you're stupid enough to think that no one will catch you at it.

 

[Slimething]

That you compare anything by that idiot with a textbook says everything about you that I care to know: you are no friend of the truth.

I wasn't comparing them, mr. brilliant. I was skewering your illogic: a published book = scientific fact. New one on me.

Supposed I sent you a science textbook from the Middle Ages? Would the stuff in there be fact?

BTW shneib, you put me on your ignore list, remember? Why am I so blessed with your wisdom again? I can find paranoiacs in the alleyways so there really was no need.

 

[Slimething]

I know I'm corresponding with someone who's compromised but some of these "comebacks" are so delicious, I couldn't resist.

What "more" do you suppose there would be? Little fairies that hold the little atomies together? Perhaps you think there's micro-glue holding them together. Or maybe you think von Daniken is doing it.

Perhaps you should read that book you bought. Science is a very precise language. Pay attention to detail. Also, answer my questions and I'll answer yours. I don't give out free educations.

Maybe if it was a book about chemical bonds. Which, given the title, it obviously isn't.

Given the title of the book, it most certainly is about chemical bonds. Do you read much?

I don't even know what this means, and I'm growing more and more certain you don't either.

Apparently, there's much that fits in the category of "shneib doesn't know what this means". BTW, I wrote it. Of course, I know what it means. Maybe you should read it more slowly or have someone read it to you.

And this is relevant because...?

Because you seem to make the idiotic assumption that anything with the word "physical' in it is related directly to physics. You need a physician.

Why don't you read it and find out. It's a textbook. You might be able to learn something, if you can put down the bong long enough.

You're the one making the claim, boyo. I don't have to do anything. I've already done it. Chemistry is my field as sophistry is yours. I know what I'm talking about. I earn my money in chemistry. You?

That would be because you had an acid trip and THOUGHT you were a real chemist?

LOL! If I'm not, I do a damned good impersonation!

BTW, do you think that this type of response will somehow fool other readers into ignoring the fact that you're not backing up any of your claims? This is a skeptical forum. Most of the people here are not fools, schneib. You may be able to yell down people at school but it doesn't work here.

How about a whole table of them? It's the appendix, and it's called the Solid State Table of the Elements.

So, this brilliant author who claims to be able to predict all these characteristics from the scant data we have on molecular bonds does not work out any examples in the text? Either you got gypped or you did not understand what he wrote. My money is on that the values in the appendix are empirically derived.

You don't know very much about solid-state physics, do you? Of course, you don't know very much about chemistry, either, so I guess that's no surprise.

I'm a chemist. I don't know much about solid-state physics. That's not what this thread is about, anyway. Let me remind you. You made the broad claim that chemistry is derived from physics. You also made the special claim that, given what physics knows about the nature of atoms and bonding, that physics could predict a wide variety of physical characteristics of compounds. So, what of it? Where's the evidence?

Don't put yourself down, shneib. Anyone reading this thread will recognize that I know a heck of a lot more about chemistry than you do. So, if you want to tell me I don't know much, it's obvious you know even less. In any case, you're right. I don't know nearly as much about chemistry as I want to know. You seem to know now all you ever will about the subject.

It's on the physics 601/602 book list at Rutgers. You might also want to have a look at the course materials for the Methods of Electronic Structure Theory in Materials Science class at the Materials Research Laboratory at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the citations in some pretty recent papers in Physical Review Letters and so forth. Then there's Purdue University's course Nanomaterials Chemistry and Engineering, Chem 697M, which also has it on the book list. Overall, in the first two pages of hits from google, I found eight college courses and five citations in the peer-reviewed literature.

Good. That means it's probably a good book. Don't you wish you could read with comprehension?

What "known physics of the bonding?" Having a little trouble with the whole reading comprehension thing there, sport? Looks that way. Because whatever you're talkin about, it has pretty much zip to do with this conversation.

You're right. Leave the last "the" out and the sentence gains the elegance that would befit a stalwart scholar like you. Now, why don't you address the point instead of giving me a bunch of hoo-ha that only demonstrates your immaturity?

Listen, put the bong down and pay attention. You're talking about a book that's being used in current curriculum university physics and chemistry classes, get it?

No disrespect meant to the book, schneib. My point was that you misunderstood what the author wrote. I don't believe the author wrote what you claim he wrote. I'm being kind: I could presume that you are lying.

No, actually I hadn't- I don't generally pay you much attention, the kind of crap you posted here is pretty much of the same type as most of the drivel you post, and I don't bother reading it much. It's not really worthwhile, and to top it all off, you'll do ANYTHING, including lie, to "prove you're right." It doesn't prove anything but that you're stupid enough to think that no one will catch you at it.

Oh, dear, there's that accusation again. I had a fundie imbecile in a different thread also call me a liar but he refused all calls to point out the lie. Such is the way of idiots. You're not an idiot, are you, shneib? If you're going to call me a liar, the least you could do is to quote my lie. Then, I could get in on the fun, too.

Really, scheib, the one who's more likely lying is you. You won't answer any of my points but I will point out to you that you claimed to have put me on your ignore list way back when. I'm flattered that you're reading anything I write but that still doesn't hide the inconsistency.

Like I told you before, schneib, you need to get medical attention for your anger problem. It's not normal for you to get so damned hepped up on this discussion that you would resort to insults and slander instead of posting evidence that proves me wrong. Now, put me back on your ignore list. Ignore is something you seem to be very good at.

 

[Schneibster]

I wasn't comparing them, mr. brilliant. I was skewering your illogic: a published book = scientific fact. New one on me.

I bet. Books seem in general to be a "new one on you."

Supposed I sent you a science textbook from the Middle Ages? Would the stuff in there be fact?

"Science textbook from the Middle Ages?" What on Earth are you talking about? First, I'm pretty sure they didn't have textbooks in the Middle Ages. Second, I'm pretty sure they didn't even have Science in the Middle Ages. So basically, what you've just said is completely meaningless- which is no particular change from anything else you've said so far.

BTW shneib, you put me on your ignore list, remember? Why am I so blessed with your wisdom again? I can find paranoiacs in the alleyways so there really was no need.

Someone decided you might actually be saying something worthwhile, and I wanted to help them overcome their delusion.

 

[Schneibster]

I know I'm corresponding with someone who's compromised but some of these "comebacks" are so delicious, I couldn't resist.

You probably should have. I'm about to make you look like even more of an idiot than you already do- which, by the way, is a pretty difficult task. But I'm up for it.

Perhaps you should read that book you bought. Science is a very precise language. Pay attention to detail. Also, answer my questions and I'll answer yours. I don't give out free educations.

Ask some that have something to do with reality and I'll think about it. So far, none of them have.

Given the title of the book, it most certainly is about chemical bonds. Do you read much?

Hmm. Let's check this out.

Electronic? Nope. No bonds there.
How about Structure? Nope. Not a bond in sight.
Hmmm, "and the?" Nope. Still no bonds.
OK, how about "Properties?" Nope. Bonds seem remarkably thin on the ground here.
What about "of?" Nope. STILL no bonds to be found.
Here comes the last one: "Solids." Nope. And that's all she wrote.

Overall, I'd say you had a brain fart. I see nothing in the title that has anything to do with bonds.

Apparently, there's much that fits in the category of "shneib doesn't know what this means". BTW, I wrote it. Of course, I know what it means. Maybe you should read it more slowly or have someone read it to you.

Oh, well, do tell us.

Oops. Guess you forgot. Never mind, take another hit, big guy.

Because you seem to make the idiotic assumption that anything with the word "physical' in it is related directly to physics. You need a physician.

Hmmm, well, I know how we can take care of this: we'll consult a dictionary! Uh oh, look out, that's another of those "book" things you have so much trouble with. But at least everybody else will know what's going on. Let's try that, shall we?

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about Physical chemistry^WP: "Physical chemistry is the application of physics to macroscopic, microscopic, atomic and particulate phenomena in chemical systems[1]within the field of chemistry traditionally using the principles, practices and concepts of thermodynamics, quantum chemistry, statistical mechanics and kinetics."

Oops. I think I see "application of physics" in there. Well, maybe Wikipedia is wrong. Let's try another one. How about the Biochemistry Division of Northwestern University's definition of physical chemistry? "'The physics of chemistry' A branch of chemistry which is interested in things such as, how much pressure would have to be placed on a solid to convert it to a liquid."

Oooooh. That's gotta hurt. You want some ice to put on it?

Maybe we can dig you out of this hole. What's the American Heritage dictionary say? No help there: "Scientific analysis of the properties and behavior of chemical systems primarily by physical theory and technique, as, for example, the thermodynamic analysis of macroscopic chemical phenomena." Physical theory. Yep, that'd be physics. Not to mention thermodynamics. Of course, with that little problem you have, you probably think thermodynamics is a branch of, I dunno, music theory or something, but hey, that's OK, just take another hit and it'll all be fine.

Maybe McGraw Hill will be better? Not a chance. "The branch of chemistry that deals with the interpretation of chemical phenomena and properties in terms of the underlying physical processes, and with the development of techniques for their investigation. The term chemical physics is often employed to denote a branch of physical chemistry where the emphasis is on the interpretation and analysis of the physical properties of individual molecules and bulk systems, instead of their reactions. Theoretical chemistry is another major branch, where the emphasis is on the calculation of the properties of molecules and systems, and which used the techniques of quantum mechanics and statistical thermodynamics. It is convenient to regard physical chemistry as dealing with three aspects of matter: its equilibrium properties, structure, and ability to change."

Oooh, quantum mechanics. Dude, you're sunk. That's REAL physics.

You're the one making the claim, boyo. I don't have to do anything. I've already done it.

No, all you've done is make a bunch of claims that have turned out not to be true. Every one of them so far that has been verifiable has plain, flat failed. On the other hand, every one I've made so far has turned out to be solid. I suppose you're going to claim that Rutgers and Northwestern and Purdue and UCSB's Mat Lab have no idea what they're talking about.

If you want to know my opinion, I think you're playing Ludwig Plutonium and doing a very bad job of it.

Chemistry is my field as sophistry is yours. I know what I'm talking about. I earn my money in chemistry. You?

Basically, this appears to be nothing but a lie. I'm assuming you wash test tubes or something. Maybe you work in the cafeteria at DuPont.

LOL! If I'm not, I do a damned good impersonation!

Or perhaps not so good. Looking pretty bad just about now; all I see is claims, no substance behind them.

BTW, do you think that this type of response will somehow fool other readers into ignoring the fact that you're not backing up any of your claims?

So, Rutgers University, Northwestern University, UC Santa Barbara's Materials Lab, the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and Wikipedia constitute "not backing up my claims?"

Meanwhile, you've got Erik von Daniken.

Like I said, Ludwig Plutonium.

This is a skeptical forum.

Congratulations! Not only is this the first thing you've said that actually approached reality, but


YOU NOTICED!!!!

Most of the people here are not fools, schneib.

No, but you sure are.

You may be able to yell down people at school but it doesn't work here.

Wait a minute... this looks like you've slipped and made an assumption about me because it's true about YOU. Oh, my. A college kid who thinks he's ready to play in the bigs.

Don't hang any curveballs, kid... Oh, wait, guess it's a bit late for that.

Son, I been out of school pretty obviously longer than you been ALIVE. I prolly have hairs growing on my butt that are older than you are. So when you rile me up, I tend to make a show out of it- 'cause, see, the kind of tactics you use, they're kiddie stuff, and I don't think anyone who uses them deserves any mercy at all. Whatever you were figuring to do with this persona, I'd forget it, because I'm telling you, there ain't a soul on this board gonna listen to a single thing you got to say after this, unless they're as screwed up as you are.

It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains that you wouldn't know a chemistry if it bit you on the a$$. If you did, you'd be trottin it out right now. You got nothin. You been lyin, and you're caught but good. It was me, I'd pull that zipper DOWN 'stead of UP, but hey, it's not MY schlong caught up in it.

So, this brilliant author who claims to be able to predict all these characteristics from the scant data we have on molecular bonds

"Scant data we have on molecular bonds?" What the hell you been readin, son? This was published in 1992. It's the first google hit for "molecular bond strength table." It refers to another method of calculating the same thing. So there's at least two ways to do it. The second hit yields a page from the Chemistry Department web site of Michigan State University that has a table in it; search the page for "bond energy." In the blurb above the table, they say: "Tables of bond energies may be found in most text books and handbooks."

So much for the "scant" data on the super-mysterious sekrit molecular bonds.

This stuff is comedy GOLD, man. Where do you come up with it?

does not work out any examples in the text?

Why should I bother to show them to YOU? You haven't demonstrated a lick of knowledge on the subject so far, and from what you HAVE said I have every reason to believe that you'd just dismiss them because you don't understand them, or else lie about it some more.

For your information, he provides templates you can program into a scientific calculator to give expected physical properties of solids, and the table I spoke of organizes the key constants you have to change for each different element. I'd guess, though, that I lost you at "templates," or perhaps "calculator." Those long words, you know.

By the way, you ARE aware that Walter Harrison was a Professor of Applied Physics at Stanford University from 1965 to 1989, and from then until 1993, when he retired, was the Department Chair, right? And that he's currently a Professor Emeritus on the Stanford Applied Physics Faculty, correct? And that he has published over fifty articles in the field, correct? You DID look up his CV, didn't you? Or do you even know what a CV is?

And you DID know that he wrote THE textbook on solid matter physics, right?

Say, how'd you get a mousetrap stuck THERE????!!???

Either you got gypped or you did not understand what he wrote. My money is on that the values in the appendix are empirically derived.

Ummmm, that would be because the bonding energies are all still super-mysterious and nobody knows anything about them, right?

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

I'm a chemist.

Ha. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

I don't know much about solid-state physics.

Nor about universities, nor about physics of ANY kind, nor about chemistry either, as far as I can tell; you don't even know enough to go look up a professor's CV, and look for him on his students' CVs, to see how many good ones he's grown.

It looks like you're a person who read a chemistry book from the 1950s or so once about five years ago to me. And didn't understand more than about 30% of it, at that.

That's not what this thread is about, anyway.

Or anyway, you'd rather not talk about it any more, like get challenged to provide some kind of proof that you actually know what you're talking about.

Let me remind you. You made the broad claim that chemistry is derived from physics. You also made the special claim that, given what physics knows about the nature of atoms and bonding, that physics could predict a wide variety of physical characteristics of compounds. So, what of it? Where's the evidence?

Ummmmm, in the book by the Stanford University PhD Professor of Applied Physics who appears on the CVs of at least eight published scientists in physics and chemistry, the book that appears on the curricula of Northwestern University, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Purdue University, the book that is referenced as a source in literally scores of major scientific papers in physics, chemistry, materials science, and nanotechnology, that you claim is equivalent to Chariots of the Gods. That do ya?

Hmmm. I'd say that's one for me. You're lookin' a little red, there, sport. I'd get outta the sunlight I was you.

Don't put yourself down, shneib. Anyone reading this thread will recognize that I know a heck of a lot more about chemistry than you do.

Oh, really? And, that would be, perhaps, because you've provided SO MANY SOURCES TO BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY? Well, maybe not. Maybe then, it would be because YOU'VE SAID SO MANY DEEP TECHNICAL THINGS ABOUT CHEMISTRY? Hmmm, well, that one doesn't work either, does it? Gee, so remind me here, why precisely was that, again? See, as far as I can tell, you know absolutely not one single thing about chemistry.

So, if you want to tell me I don't know much, it's obvious you know even less.

And that would be because I didn't discuss technical points about chemistry? Well, no, I guess that's wrong. Hmmm, then I didn't provide links to citations that proved what I said? Errrmmm, well, no, that one doesn't work either. I think you've got another one of those little "credibility gap" problems here.

You're right. Leave the last "the" out and the sentence gains the elegance that would befit a stalwart scholar like you. Now, why don't you address the point instead of giving me a bunch of hoo-ha that only demonstrates your immaturity?

Because you're so full of crap your eyes are brown. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. You never did. From the evidence here, you never will.

No disrespect meant to the book, schneib. My point was that you misunderstood what the author wrote. I don't believe the author wrote what you claim he wrote. I'm being kind: I could presume that you are lying.

Look, you haven't a clue what the TITLE means, sport. You're claiming it's about bonding. Don't you think you'd better maybe take a step back before you make yourself look any stupider?

Oh, dear, there's that accusation again. I had a fundie imbecile in a different thread also call me a liar but he refused all calls to point out the lie.

Heh, well, I guess we don't have that problem here, DO WE???

Such is the way of idiots. You're not an idiot, are you, shneib? If you're going to call me a liar, the least you could do is to quote my lie. Then, I could get in on the fun, too.

I see no need to provide anything that I haven't already. I think it's all clear, obvious, no questions required.

Really, scheib, the one who's more likely lying is you.

And that would be... because I provided LINKS TO PROVE EVERYTHING I SAID? Hmmm, well, no, that's not right, is it? So, where does this whole "likely" thing come from? Is that like the "bonding" thing above?

You won't answer any of my points but I will point out to you that you claimed to have put me on your ignore list way back when. I'm flattered that you're reading anything I write but that still doesn't hide the inconsistency.

Like I said, someone thought you had a brain. I'm fixing that gross misapprehension.

Like I told you before, schneib, you need to get medical attention for your anger problem. It's not normal for you to get so damned hepped up on this discussion that you would resort to insults and slander instead of posting evidence that proves me wrong. Now, put me back on your ignore list. Ignore is something you seem to be very good at.

Sure, whatever. I'd say you're pretty much through here.

 

[Schneibster]

You get one shot. Use it wisely.

 

[Cuddles]

This has to be the most bizzare argument I've ever seen. And I've been to the conspiracy sub-forum.

Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything.

 

[DeviousB]

No, it is not, because as I already stated math cannot distinguish WHICH self-consistent theories actually conform to reality. It's quite easy to come up with theories which do not, yet remain mathematically self-consistent. Mathematical self-consistency is believed to be a necessary requirement of any good physical theory, but it is most certainly NOT sufficient. There's only one way to determine which self-consistent model(s) correspond to reality: actual experimentation. And once you start doing actual experiments, you're no longer doing math, but science.

But then, physics can almost certainly come up with a myriad possible, feasible schemes for life, and can no more determine which corresponds to reality than maths can decide between multiple consistent physica.

As you said yourself...

If you could model the entire physics of an ecosystem (something we cannot do and quite possibly never will be able to do for purely practical reasons), I expect we would indeed find that it behaves according to natural selection, WITHOUT putting natural selection into the model explicitly. [...] If it is NOT reducible, then that means that no matter how complex we make our physical simulation, it would not match reality. And that cannot happen unless there is some process going on which does NOT obey physics as we understand it, but actually violates it.

If you could model the whole universe mathematically (something we will undoubtedly never be able to practically achieve), I equally expect it will produce all physical phenomena. Unless some part of physics CANNOT be expressed as mathematics, however complex, physics is just as reducible to mathematics.

 

[Yllanes]

But then, physics can almost certainly come up with a myriad possible, feasible schemes for life, and can no more determine which corresponds to reality than maths can decide between multiple consistent physica.

It's not the same thing. To get from mathematics to natural sciences you need observations. There is a clear qualitative jump there. To get from one particular part of science to another you just need a different experiment, but you don't have the same discontinuity.

To put it another way. It is true that physics could 'come up with a myriad possible, feasible schemes for life'. But physics can also come up with a 'myriad possible, feasible schemes' for... physics.

As I said before, Einstein's equations for GR are not just mathematics, we accept them because it was found that they described reality. But even accepting Eintein's equations and thermodynamics, etc. we cannot determine whether our universe is infinite or not, both possibilities are perfectly consistent. Physics has come up here with several 'possible, feasible' schemes for cosmology. Further observations can determine which one (if any) is correct. Yet nobody says that cosmology is not physics because it is not completely determined by Einstein's equations alone, without more observations.

In just the same way a hypothetical physical theory for life could come up with several possibilities. Observations would determine which one was correct. There is no difference between that scenario (that admittedly will never happen in practice) and the former example about cosmology.

 

[Ziggurat]

But then, physics can almost certainly come up with a myriad possible, feasible schemes for life, and can no more determine which corresponds to reality than maths can decide between multiple consistent physica.

That's not how it works. Physics, just like every other science, is predictive, but it's predictive only when you give it an initial state.

If you could model the whole universe mathematically (something we will undoubtedly never be able to practically achieve), I equally expect it will produce all physical phenomena. Unless some part of physics CANNOT be expressed as mathematics, however complex, physics is just as reducible to mathematics.

Again, you're trying to play semantic games, which are quite uninteresting. Not, it's NOT reducible to math. Math is just the language, it does not provide the content. Given an initial state, WHICH of the infinity of possible equations should you use to describe its evolution? Math cannot tell you. You MUST rely upon physical principles, which can ONLY be derived by actual experimentation. Which means you're doing physics. So once again, you CANNOT reduce it to math the way you can reduce chemistry to physics. You're really grasping at straws here.

 

[Slimething]

I bet. Books seem in general to be a "new one on you."

(Sigh) Is this the best you can do? Intentional misinterpretation of what I write seems to be your MO. It's not witty or funny but transparent and tiresome.

"Science textbook from the Middle Ages?" What on Earth are you talking about? First, I'm pretty sure they didn't have textbooks in the Middle Ages. Second, I'm pretty sure they didn't even have Science in the Middle Ages. So basically, what you've just said is completely meaningless- which is no particular change from anything else you've said so far.

It was a hypothetical. Let me give you a more concrete case since you have limited imagination. Suppose I gave you a chemistry or physics textbook written before the Bohr atom was accepted. Would you wave that in my face when I wrote that each little atomie (sorry, had to use it) has little, invisible shelves of different energies where it stores its electrons and spectral lines are caused by the electrons jumping from one little shelf to another?

Someone decided you might actually be saying something worthwhile, and I wanted to help them overcome their delusion.

People actually go to you for scientific counsel? Fascinating.

So, let me get this straight. Someone who can't think for themselves whom I've stumped comes and gets you, the grand science poobah of the JREF Forum. Then you arrive, call me names, declare yourself the winner and (with any luck) leave? All the while you haven't even obliquely addressed the question that originally stumped them? Yes, sometimes life is stranger than fiction. You should be in the ministry.

 

[Schneibster]

Well, that takes care of that- obvious woo.