Subject: Molecular Orbital, QM and beyond (only to those interested)

From: Guosheng Wu <wu_guosheng2002~at~yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 08:20:46 -0700 (PDT)

Since it's in the weekend time for most people around the world,
just add a few spices into this "barbecue", without any attempt 
to challenge anyone else's opinions, and hope everyone who has 
no any interest in the subject would not have wasted time in
reading my emails.

(1)The foundation of modern science is mostly composed of the 
abilities of human being on imagination & creativity, mathematics 
& observations(physical experiments mainly beginning from Galilee).

Imagination & creativity is the unique(?) property of human being;
mathematics & observation are the tools for our brain and hands to 
explore the landscape of the physical world.

Any comments on scientifical topics should consider this first.

The above sentense also fits the discussion of "molecular orbital".

As claimed for many times in this list by many people, molecular
orbital or wave function in any sense is not observation, but
a mathematical tool. A Simple "veto" to anyone who is still questioning
that is: there are real numbers/functions(0,1,-1, pai,e,...) and the 
complex numbers/functions(i, cos(theta)+i*sin(theta),...) and i is
the simplest complex number/function, purely imaginative, so it's not in the 
scope of an observation, but can be only "observated" in the brain of human. 
Molecular orbital or wave functions have lots to do with the "i", so...

(2)The landscape of our knowledge in science is evolving in a speed
beyond the imagination of many people. 

A simple example is that there was some report on the possibility that a male 
person may be able to give new birth without any information from a female 
person, but himself or another man. In some sense this would lead to
challenge in various areas, including science, even the practice of such kind of
thing will take a while to become feasible.

Similarly for the laws on the motions of matter: QM is the current best 
description, and to my knowledge, it has no conflicts with all of the current 
experimental observations.

If one day new experimental data might find the conflicts, it will be time
for a broader theory than the current QM, and this has nothing to do
with the truth that "i" is imaginative, not real. 

(3)Philosophy is good, and it is difficult. This may be beyond the ability
or interest to most of the audience in this list, and may attach someone
to the scope of religion. (For example, "belif" means "existance"?)

Anyway, it's nice to see different views to one of the most useful concept 
in quantum chemistry, and it's at least good for me to practice English.

Cheers.

Guosheng Wu

(currently a contractor to a pharmaceutical company, to a foreign country 
and to life; all in the sense of time/dynamics; hopefully people in the
pharmaceutical industry sooner or later will help change the dynamics of life 
significantly, then the contract can extend a little bit for everyone... )

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