Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Radoslav Bozov said:

    Dear Eric,

    As far as I remeber, we had an interesting collision of arguments on ACS "The most cool element" posting in regard of reasonability for the development of quanutm chemistry. Perhaps you are not a russian school guy, but Stanford school has a good vision of quanutm numbers. It would be appropriate that when you talk about periodicity, the first prediction of space about period was as follows: as atomic number increase within a period, teh attraction between protons and neutrons would increase, thus atoms having more compressed electron functional density as atomic weight increases. My argument was that quanutm chemistry was an outcome of valance bond theory that studied mainly carbon compounds and the geometry of molecules as defined further by atomic orbital hybridization theory which actually bridges quanutm chemistry to carbon states – sp3,sp2 and sp. You cannot talk of quantum chemistry wihtout signifying carbon’s centrality as a fundamental hub in the development of the model encapsulating uncertainty principle. Any general chemis realizes that nuclear decay rate increases as mass of elements increases. However, no physical theory unifies QCD QED. Do you have a chappter in your book describing such interference?   Moreover, may you explain the high toxicity of technetium relative to quantum chemistry, lets say?

  2. Report this comment

    Eric Scerri said:

    Thank you for your comment Radoslav but I’m afraid I do not recall any previous exchange.  There is nothing central about carbon in the explanation of the periodic table.  Claiming this amounts to the most egregious piece of anthropic reasoning that I have seen.  Contrary to what you write, I have talked about the periodic table at great length without invoking the centrality of carbon.