I don't understand what you're trying to get at here.
Ziggurat, the "conversation" you stepped in the middle of is one where shneibster has concluded that all sciences stem from physics. That's all I'm getting at from that remark. There is nothing wrong with what you've written.
No, Ziggurat, you can't. Physics fails to do much of anything after the very simplest cases. There are many physical parameters that can be estimated from a structure but not all. Again, you're running into schneibster's pissing in the soup in that he claims that one can even calculate the texture of a molecule. Any chemist who's made anything can tell you that's wrong. Anyone who's seen a diamond and held a lump of coal in their hand will tell you that's just an enormous pile of crap.
That book isn't made up. I don't own it personally, but I've met Walter Harrison (the author) and talked with him about the exact sort of stuff Schneibster described in that book, and he even recommended I take a look at it for that reason (though I haven't gotten around to it yet).
No, the book is real. I've found it of sale on the web. (I had to look it up because the schneib likes to make up little facts here and there.) The made up stuff is that schneib claims to possess it and to have read it. From his claims and from the little I found regarding the contents of said book, his claims about the book are pure bunkum. To compound his lie, he later stated the book had no content concerning chemical bonding. That claim was ludicrous because he had posted the title to the book earlier and included the subtitle "The physicis of the chemical bond" (IIRC).
The book is not fantasy but what schneibster says about it is.
I'm afraid you're wrong, and the reason you're wrong is that there's more than one equivalent description of the physics involved. Yes, optical rotation occurs in linearly polarized light. But linearly polarized light can also be expressed as a superposition of circularly polarized light with opposite chiralities. The rotation of the polarization axis of linearly polarized light is exactly the same thing as a shift in the relative phases of the two chiralities. And the absobtion and re-emission of one of those chiralities is exactly the sort of thing that leads to a relative phase shift. So your reference hasn't actually contradicted Schneibster's claim - it's just a different representation of the same thing.
Well, if I'm wrong for that reason, so is schneibster. The article I linked to concerned itself with crystallographic light polarization. The mathematics were based on crystallographic tensors. That is not what occurs in chemical light polarization but it's the best I could do. Kindly post a better explanation of optical rotation by molecules in solution. That is, molecules that are free-floating and are not burdened by a crystal matrix.
I've asked for an explanation and all I'm getting from the physics crowd are allusions to possible explanations which serve me not at all. But, let's face it, the issue is a derail. Maybe it isn't to you but schneibster is using it to smokescreen the fact that he can't make his grandiose claims about physics stick.
I don't mind if you don't like Schneibster. Hell, to be honest I don't actually like him much myself.
I find schneibster's MO repugnant. I've run accross this type of person too many times in my career. On one hand, he's a scientific bully who will try to embarass the other party into submission if they disagree with him or force him out of his comfort zone. On the other hand, he's also the know-it-all who would rather make up facts on the spot than admit there's something he doesn't know. I suspect he means well but he may not appreciate that both of these practices ultimately drive people away from science and into woo-ville. As a matter of fact, a made-up fact can be the basis of someone's distrust of science.
Frankly, I'd rather have him on the other side. (As a matter of fact, I usually find people like him on the other side and I am pretty good at exposing them for the fools they are.)
But trust me on this one: he knows a lot of physics.
I suspect he knows a fair bit of physics. How much and where it ends are, to me, unknown. Frankly, I'll get my physics from more reputable sources.
