For the alternative theorists:

leopold said:
but they ARE molecules, in the case of pure diamond single molecules.
a grain of table salt is different, it's composed of several of the same molecule NaCl.
you are correct in saying it's something that isn't discussed much.
Click to expand...

No, NaCL is NOT made of "molecules" of Na-Cl, at any rate not in the solid or liquid states. It has +ve and -ve ions, arranged in an infinite array, each Na+ ion being equidistant from a large number of Cl- ions and not in any way associated with one of them in particular.

You are right that in the gas phase you will get ionic molecules of NaCl, but until the ions have enough energy to break away from their neighbours into the vapour, they do not choose partners.

The same goes for solid carbon. If it is sp² hybridised, you get 2D sheets of fused hexagonal rings (the basis of graphite and exotica such as Fuckmisterbullerenes) loosely bound to each other - hence graphite's properties as a solid lubricant. If it is sp³ hybridised, you get 4 bonds pointing towards the corners of a tetrahedron and that gives you diamond, strongly bonded in 3D.

In fact buckyballs are 60 atom molecules made of something broadly similar to graphite, which by contrast consists of infinite sheets and not molecules.
 
exchem said:
No, NaCL is NOT made of "molecules" of Na-Cl, at any rate not in the solid or liquid states. It has +ve and -ve ions, arranged in an infinite array, each Na+ ion being equidistant from a large number of Cl- ions and not in any way associated with one of them in particular.

You are right that in the gas phase you will get ionic molecules of NaCl, but until the ions have enough energy to break away from their neighbours into the vapour, they do not choose partners.

The same goes for solid carbon. If it is sp² hybridised, you get 2D sheets of fused hexagonal rings (the basis of graphite and exotica such as Fuckmisterbullerenes) loosely bound to each other - hence graphite's properties as a solid lubricant. If it is sp³ hybridised, you get 4 bonds pointing towards the corners of a tetrahedron and that gives you diamond, strongly bonded in 3D.

In fact buckyballs are 60 atom molecules made of something broadly similar to graphite, which by contrast consists of infinite sheets and not molecules.
Click to expand...

Bucky may be rolling in his grave, but we're having a blast. Nice explanation (as usual) :).
 
Aqueous Id said:
Bucky may be rolling in his grave, but we're having a blast. Nice explanation (as usual) :).
Click to expand...

I love it when someone comes up with a plausible "alternate" solution. Why do we always assume a choice between two states, instead of several possible states, each distinct and separate from all others.
 
everything i know about chemistry tells me diamond is a molecule, a carbon molecule
further addition of carbon does not alter its properties.
there is no other molecule i know of that exhibits these traits.
please don't tell me diamond can be considered . . . organic?!
maybe all the elements in the carbon group can do this sort of thing.
 
Write4U said:
Why do we always assume a choice between two states, instead of several possible states, each distinct and separate from all others.
Click to expand...
that's to be expected when discussing certain subjects.
they really don't care about any "alternative" explanation.
 
I looked at my textbook and it mentions something of a " 2D Lewis structure" is only useful in suggesting that bonding more C atoms that leads to a giant molecule.

:EDIT:

God I feel real ignorant posting that!
 
Write4U said:
I love it when someone comes up with a plausible "alternate" solution. Why do we always assume a choice between two states, instead of several possible states, each distinct and separate from all others.
Click to expand...

I think one of the great opportunities here is to expand on that. There is so much esoterica in science, so much ground to cover. And it's not necessarily black and white. But I like reading the snippets of wisdom from the folks who are contributing.

Another thought that came to mind (I was just in chinglu's thread on the fragility of cytosine as grounds for rejecting abiogenesis) is the way theories sometimes go through a hammering out which is little different than merely "mainstream" vs "alternative". That is, when some new or fragmentary evidence is under consideration, it's premature to say there's a "mainstream". For example, consider this exchange between two scientists who are studying ancient rocks (ca. 3.5 million years old) in which the first guy states a claim that he's found the oldest evidence of life and the second guy rebuts that it was produced by geological processes (stuff that happens in the sediments before they age and harden):

Bill Schopf (UCLA) found (ca 1993) worm-like extrusions in the Apex chert of Western Australia. These tiny structures resembled filaments of cyanobacteria, known to dominate the Earth about a billion years later. For about a decade, folks tended to accept Dr Schopf's hypothesis. Enter Martin Brasier (Oxford) who used better imaging techniques to study the same structures. He found branching which was not compatible with the biological descriptions given by Dr Schopf. He characterized them as "pseudofossils" created by the presence of organic material near grains of quartz, formed deep in the Earth, not at the surface where cyanobacteria live. So Schopf did more analysis, this time using even more advanced imaging (Raman spectroscopy) and determined that the walls of the "fossils" were made of kerogen. Martin replied that these walls were merely organic carbon coating quartz grain. Schopf argued that this was incorrect.

(paraphrasing p. 81 of Oxygen, a recent book by Harvard geochemist Donald Canfield, which explains the current state of the science as to the origins of our present atmosphere.)

Just thought I'd throw that into the mix. Creationists love to jump onto their apocalyptic bandwagons whenever they detect any kind of actual scientific debate going on which they think impacts their world view. They will tend to assign Dr Schopf as a "mainstreamer". But really, he was just the guy who raised the flag about these remarkably life-like structures in the first place. I don' think there is any mainstream view, except of course everyone's pretty sure there was organic material present, telling us life probably existed 3.5 billion years ago--just not necessarily in the form of cyanobacteria. (This question is trying to refine the date of their appearance on Earth, esp. in relation to the age of the oxygenated atmosphere.)

I think Gerry Nightingale was trying to announce some discovery of microscopic diamond particles, but unfortunately he used the term "sub molecular" which is absurd (even a unit cell of a diamond's crystal lattice is bigger than a typical simple molecule). That opened up some discussion on crystallography which took a weird turn. But in this case there is nothing new or controversial in play. So this boils down to simply recognizing that Gerry N had his facts mixed up, and didn't quite understand the nature of crystal lattices.

But I like your outlook. For those of us not tripping over science (in both senses of the term) we tend to categorize the kinds of data we see as either "binary" (true or false) or else not, meaning more that there is usually a story that unfolds when we inquire into nature, which often is rather elaborate in detail, and not given to oversimplifications of "true" or "false".
 
leopold said:
everything i know about chemistry tells me diamond is a molecule, a carbon molecule
further addition of carbon does not alter its properties.
there is no other molecule i know of that exhibits these traits.
please don't tell me diamond can be considered . . . organic?!
maybe all the elements in the carbon group can do this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Well clearly I'm not going to convince you about molecules vs. lattices, Leopold. But please at least do me the favour of reading this: http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-molecule-and-vs-lattice/

Structures such as that of diamond are also known as "giant" covalent structures, to distinguish them from molecular structures: http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/structures/giantcov.html

It seems to me that solid elemental boron or silicon would behave in just the same way as what you describe for diamond. So I'm afraid I can't quite see what is so unique about the giant structure of diamond.
 
exchemist said:
Well clearly I'm not going to convince you about molecules vs. lattices, Leopold. But please at least do me the favour of reading this: http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-molecule-and-vs-lattice/

Structures such as that of diamond are also known as "giant" covalent structures, to distinguish them from molecular structures: http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/structures/giantcov.html
Click to expand...
it seems the consensus isn't exactly clear:
https://www.google.com/search?q=dia...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
It seems to me that solid elemental boron or silicon would behave in just the same way as what you describe for diamond. So I'm afraid I can't quite see what is so unique about the giant structure of diamond.
Click to expand...
yes, probably the entire group behaves this way.
 
paddoboy said:
Yep, agreed...Life from non life.
Click to expand...

Is there such a wide gap between life and non-life or is it our understanding of what it is to be "alive".
Insects (hive mind) have not the least regard for life, except rearing the off-spring of a single individual.

But can anyone tell me the value of "Higher Awareness" when contemplating slaughtering thousands of people for just an "Idea", or a "Belief"?
 
I recollect some discussion earlier on, about the Electric Eel with regards to details in Evolution?
Consequently, this article may prove of interest.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6191/1522
Verdict
In summary, we believe that as a model of initial conditions, inflation is a very adaptable theory,
but there remain several ways in which it might be ruled out. It remains to be seen whether any
of these tests become decisive. But as a model of structure formation, inflation lives much more
dangerously. Future observations offer the prospect of a critical test. Whether inflation created the
large-scale structure of the Universe is at present not proven, but will eventually be decided, one
way or the other, beyond all reasonable doubt.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

or....

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-truth-electric-fish.html

What is amazing is that the electric organ arose independently six times in the course of evolutionary history," says Lindsay Traeger, a UW-Madison graduate student in genetics and a co-lead author of the new report along with Jason Gallant, an assistant professor of zoology at Michigan State University.
Adds Gallant: "The surprising result of our study is that electric fish seem to use the same 'genetic toolbox' to build their electric organ," despite the fact that they evolved independently.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-truth-electric-fish.html#jCp
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
 
paddoboy said:
I recollect some discussion earlier on, about the Electric Eel with regards to details in Evolution?
Consequently, this article may prove of interest.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6191/1522
Verdict
In summary, we believe that as a model of initial conditions, inflation is a very adaptable theory,
but there remain several ways in which it might be ruled out. It remains to be seen whether any
of these tests become decisive. But as a model of structure formation, inflation lives much more
dangerously. Future observations offer the prospect of a critical test. Whether inflation created the
large-scale structure of the Universe is at present not proven, but will eventually be decided, one
way or the other, beyond all reasonable doubt.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

or....

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-truth-electric-fish.html

What is amazing is that the electric organ arose independently six times in the course of evolutionary history," says Lindsay Traeger, a UW-Madison graduate student in genetics and a co-lead author of the new report along with Jason Gallant, an assistant professor of zoology at Michigan State University.
Adds Gallant: "The surprising result of our study is that electric fish seem to use the same 'genetic toolbox' to build their electric organ," despite the fact that they evolved independently.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-truth-electric-fish.html#jCp
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Click to expand...

This is the greatest obstacle in discussing Scripture. Scripture begins with teaching "irreducible complexity" (In the beginning god created everything as we see it and how it functions now, each according to its kind.........)

The opposite is true. In the beginnining there was only energy (chaos), from which a few simple structures arose, which, over time became more and more complex until we are beginning to see what it is and how it functions.

Theists, throw away "Irreducible Complexity" and life will become so much simpler to understand.
 
Write4U said:
Is there such a wide gap between life and non-life or is it our understanding of what it is to be "alive".
Insects (hive mind) have not the least regard for life, except rearing the off-spring of a single individual.
Click to expand...
Could it possibly be that the perception of of any "gap' in the first place, Write4U, may stem from a mis-understanding of what it means to be "alive"?

Write4U said:
But can anyone tell me the value of "Higher Awareness" when contemplating slaughtering thousands of people for just an "Idea", or a "Belief"?
Click to expand...
I cannot "tell" you what you ask.
However, I can tell you that any person or persons contemplating slaughtering thousands of people for just an "Idea", or a "Belief", to me at least, would be exhibiting a Total Lack of even a "basic Awareness" of any value of any kind in regards to Life!

** to end on a humorous note ""

Intrusive igneous rocks, when talking of their battle to shed the vestiges of their eons long subjugation and oppression by the extrusive igneous rocks, complain that they are far to often, simply taken for Granite!
 
But can anyone tell me the value of "Higher Awareness" when contemplating slaughtering thousands of people for just an "Idea", or a "Belief"?
Click to expand...

It is similar to the chemical principle of activation energy. When chemicals need to react, since these start out as stable compounds (methane and oxygen), energy needs to be added to weaken the bonds before the reaction can proceed forward. This energy is called activation energy. Once the top of the energy curve is reached (enough activation energy) there is an exothermic output as new products forms.

There are two types of reactions (in the diagram below), endothermic and exothermic. In the first, the products gains potential relative to the starting reactants and in the second the products lower potential into more stability relative to the starting state.

The first picture is endothermic and results in more energy within the final products. In terms of culture, this is like a bad leader gaining control that causes a culture wide restlessness for its citizens; high energy cultural product on the verge of dissociation. The situation is unstable with freedoms often limited, because the activity might provide activation energy.

The second diagram is exothermic and results in a more stable union, in which the culture is working on all cylinders. Due to the stability of the products, freedom is allowed for all, since you can't react stable products further, so there is no fear of starting a reaction. This is the natural way.

The reason for war and mass killing are the leaders are not following the natural way, but tend to set up endothermic self serving cultures. Since these are not at the lowest cultural potential, there is always unrest; stored potential energy. The fear is this unrest can lead to activation energy, that can disrupt the cultural regime, so all freedom is limited with taboos, laws, regulations, snooping, police actions, etc. These are needed and act as preventive measures and firemen putting out sparks so the gasoline of an endothermic culture is not ignited and all semblances of the regime converted into a more stable democracies.

The net effect is there are laws of nature which govern humans living in cultures, and if humans don't follow, the blood is in their own hands. There is a tendency for atheists to blame the fire, when they get burnt, instead of understand that knowing the way of the fire, can prevent the burn; we decide this. What makes this harder for atheists, is atheist believe in the god of chance and chaos, therefore they don't think there is logic to anything leading to cultural absolutes of cause and effect. It is all relative and subject to chance. They blame God for lack of jackpots, in their endothermic reality.

5iOzA.png
 
Trippy said:
Boron is not in the same group as carbon, and as I have pointed out to you more than once now, Silicates (and by extension, aluminosilicates, including silica) behave the same way.
Click to expand...

This discussion set me thinking about what other elements might have giant covalent structures. It seems there are allotropes of phosphorus with a 2D giant structure, rather similar to that of graphite. And sulphur has an obscure "fibrous" form which has helical chains so is a giant structure in sort of 1D.

But it's true there are not many. The reasons are (a) there are not that many non-metals and (b) covalent bonds are directional, so to make a 2D or 3D structure, an element has to form 3 or more covalent bonds. That effectively confines giant covalent elemental structures to a small patch in the upper middle of the p block of the Periodic Table.

So while Leopold is overdoing it to say carbon is unique in this respect, there are indeed not many others that do so. Perhaps only B, Si, P and maybe, at a stretch, S.

B of course is famous for "cheating" the conventional rules by forming multicentre bonds, allowing it to to form 4 or more bonds even though it has only 3 valence electrons. (Carbon is also known to do this in very rare cases, e.g. the norbornyl cation.) This sort of thing is what gives chemistry its fascination……..for those of us that don't get out enough:)
 
wellwisher said:
What makes this harder for atheists, is atheist believe in the god of chance and chaos, therefore they don't think there is logic to anything leading to cultural absolutes of cause and effect. It is all relative and subject to chance. They blame God for lack of jackpots, in their endothermic reality.
Click to expand...

I think we can be pretty sure atheists don't blame God for anything. You see atheists do not believe in God, that's kinda the defintion of atheist.
 
exchemist said:
So while Leopold is overdoing it to say carbon is unique in this respect, there are indeed not many others that do so. Perhaps only B, Si, P and maybe, at a stretch, S.
Click to expand...
it never occured to me that i could ever see a molecule with my un-aided eye.
it seems i am doing that when i see a pure diamond, if i ever see one.
it also appears that the properties of a diamond do not change with further additions of carbon.
is this true of these other materials?
for example boron:
do the properties of this "boron structure" change when boron is added?
are there any common examples of these materials?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top