Subject: CCL: Orbitals

From: Guosheng Wu <wu_guosheng2002{at}yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:32:07 -0700 (PDT)

A few words about Orbitals and QM.

If Einstein was one of those who first discovered Quantum Mechanics,
he might have had different opinion about it, which partly would 
make it easy for many others to accept it earlier than later.

It is just because QM is so great and he was also so great...

There seems no conceptual or logical conflicts about QM.

It's just about wave_like_properties described with MO(Molecular Orbital)
or WF(wavefunction), no matter how sophisticated it may be, 
and properties from it(propability, energies...) by something like 
<WF|operator|WF>. Put time into the operator and elsewhere properly
if one is interested in the properties of dynamics.

By the way, it seems to me MO is mostly seen as just an essentially 
same concept as WF. "MO" is still used at least in this list, just like 
any piece of a language, or the formation of a physical road ... 

As a mathematical problem for a MODEL system, it had certainly 
been solved accurately by QM, in the scope of atoms & electrons in the vacum.

For the real world problems, most people and many in this list are just 
playing with Applied Maths & computers to get something useful in some
areas of chemistry, materials or biology. 

That's it, like Direc ever said.

Guosheng

--- Sengen Sun <sengensun{at}yahoo.com> wrote:
> E. Lewars wrote:
> 
>  If MOs have no physical reality for multielectron
> species, why (a) is Koopmans' theorem useful, why (b)
> do photoelectron spectra match the predictions of MO
> energy-level diagrams, and why (c) does the Hueckel
> 4n+2 rule, which is based on MO diagrams, work? 
> 
> These are extremely interesting questions to me. They
> are very difficult to be answered, as implied by two
> very prominent theoretical physicists in the last
> century   Gell-Mann and Feynman: 
> http://www.prometheus.demon.co.uk/02/02kumar.htm
> 
> I agree with Scerri, Spanget-Larsen, and many others
> that MOs have no physical reality. But I don t think
> that we, as suggested by Feynman, should stop asking
> why MOs are so powerful for predictions in chemistry.
> If we stop thinking, we would accept the control of
> the universe by something of no physical reality; And
> we would not be able to achieve a real understanding
> of chemistry and the universe; And we would have
> conceptual or logical conflicts... 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> -= This is automatically added to each message by mailing script =-
> To send e-mail to subscribers of CCL put the string CCL: on your Subject: line
> and send your message to:  CHEMISTRY{at}ccl.net
> 
> Send your subscription/unsubscription requests to: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST{at}ccl.net 
> HOME Page: http://www.ccl.net   | Jobs Page: http://www.ccl.net/jobs 
> 
> If your mail is bouncing from CCL.NET domain send it to the maintainer:
> Jan Labanowski,  jkl{at}ccl.net (read about it on CCL Home Page)
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com