aeontide

acac is shorthand for a 2,4-Pentanedione ligand--common name ACetylACetone. This ligand is bidentate and has two donor atoms--the two oxygens. This suggests two points of attachment and you have placed two acac groups on the V central atom--accounting for all four of the equatorial bonds. I'm fairly certain both acac ligands take on an aromatic character when bonding to the metal as well--I have the proton NMR's for a Co(acac)3 which has a singlet integrating to 1, shifted down to just shy of 6. The lone oxygen will occupy an axial position and it leaves room for a sixth ligand to come in from the bottom... square pyramidal is actually quite a common geometry for this type of molecule.

Wikipedia has a pretty decent picture of it where you can more clearly see the square-pyramidal structure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadyl_acetylacetonate

I just think that if its possible and its not proven false, then its still possible. Assuming the universe had a begging and adds up to 0, is just 1 possibility. We cannot see the big bang, we do not know what happened with complete certainty. All we can say is that at the moment the universe is expanding, we can observe X numbers of years back and we cant see past radiation, we infer/extrapolate/assume from the expansion that at one point it was a singularity and at that point it began. This is not proven, only assumed.

 

Further more, hubble volumes prevent us from seeing outside another "bubble" and we cannot know what's happening at every point in our universe at the moment. Again its assumed that the universe is uniform. We dont know whats out there, so we cannot say with certainty.

 

What would it mean if a universe popped into existence in our own and we observed it?

It's not just assumed, it is predicted by the fact that at high enough energies, the fundamental forces begin to break down and unify in symmetry. The electromagnetic force and weak interaction unify at relatively low energy and so it's been verified. The strong interaction takes considerably more energy to unify with the electroweak force, however, through work in the field of quantum chromodynamics, it is all but certain that these fundamental force of quantum mechanics can be unified at high enough energy. To obtain this sort of energy, providing there is no external source to fuel our universe, the only conclusion is that the universe was considerably smaller--and a size can be calculated. It's also been predicted that the gravitational force can be unified into a supersymmetry with quantum mechanics, giving rise to terms like 'the theory of everything.' Whether you believe general relativity to be unifiable with QM or that GR is more fundamental than QM, one thing is certain, the size of the universe in order to unify the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces is knowable and we've done our best to estimate it based on our conclusions of the energies they will unify at.

So, it goes beyond the realm of an 'assumption,' although, true it is still highly uncertain a singularity is in fact the initial state of a universe to-be.

However, if indeed a universe were to suddenly pop into existence and underwent cosmic inflation--we'd never see it. The expansion would be faster than light and the bubble would in some way consume us all-- assuming we were inside the radius of the inflation caused expansion.

Hi, I was having a disscussion about this recently, I just began thinking about it again, and read up about vacuum energy on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy.

 

I didnt watch the video and havent read all the posts in this thread, I was actually going to post a new one, but decided I'd jump in here instead of doubling up.

 

So to my questions:

 

I found it interesting it says in the original, gravity can have negative energy, does this mean attractive gravity, or is it talking about dark energy?

 

What is stopping universes from spontaneously appearing inside our universe then, would these appear as black holes?

 

What is stopping matter from continuously coming into existence (and staying that way) and negative energy increasing simultaneously? Are these truely balanced? (under assumption by negative energy gravity it means dark energy) Gravity has an inverse square rule (atleast simplified newtonian), does dark energy have the same rule?

 

IF dark energy isn't bound by the inverse square rule, AND matter in constantly coming into being along with dark energy, would this account for the apparent acceleration of the expansion of the universe?

 

Just fyi, I prefer the thought the universe always existed, since this also removes the need for a deity and since time is dependant on the existence of something.

 

__

sorry, I read it now, gravity is negative energy, still this doesn't explain what dark energy is.....

 

perhaps like particle/anti particle, also anti-gravity/gravity?? And particle/gravity, anti gravity/anti particle?

 

So dark energy increases as anti particles come into existence, annihilate with matter ---> more photons + more dark energy?

 

bah, just ignore me, somethings wrong here, somethings very wrong with the whole story - explain the imbalance in matter/anti matter, explain dark energy.

 

For an anti paricle to be truely anti, shouldn't it have negative mass?

The best answer I can give as to why no universes will spontaneously appear within our universe is linked to the cosmic censorship hypothesis, whereby, if indeed the universe began as a singularity, it is of a unique character--unifying all fundamental forces into a supersymmetry, then, no singularity that is to manifest within the universe created from this initial state can reattain this state of supersymmetry and thereby, no universes can arise within another. To do so would destroy the parent universe--plus the singularity would have to literally pull the entire universe into itself which is not terribly likely--especially since there are a large number of these entities populating the universe and we are still here. The possibility is still there though, I would assume, but unlikely.

As for matter or matter-like material, it does come into existence always, popping in and out of existence [virtual particles]. They 'borrow' the energy to manifest, cause some effect, and blip back out of existence. What prevents matter from being created and existing on a more long term scale is due to energetics and some quantum mechanics. You have to have free quarks, or other fundamental particles in order to be able to create new interactions between them that lead to particles like a proton and neutron. To free up quarks takes a considerable amount of energy... and to make new quarks requires even more energy--energy levels you won't often find in the universe, if at all--except during the Big Bang.

You must consider not only the size of the atom as well as the distance these differentiating electrons are from the nucleus, but also the fact that carbon simply has more protons than a helium atom. As you go across any given row, you observe the trend that Zeff increases by 0.65. This is due to the addition of 1 proton and the addition of 1 'same-group' shielding electron, 1.00 - 0.35 = 0.65. There is no real defined 'trend' for descending a column, but Zeff does increase.

In terms of stability, all you are really looking for, at least as an undergrad, would be having a full orbital, or half-filled, and in some cases, addition to the d-group is favored over addition to the s. Obtaining the full orbital raises the ionization energies of these atoms considerably--this rise is peaked at noble gases.

Ammonium salts are often used in cold packs, specifically ammonium nitrate. Ammonium chloride also produces similar effects. From what was described, I would go with ammonium chloride as you can use it in ice packs--it is used in newer packs, whereas, you'll more than likely find ammonium nitrate in older products.

It means that there are 2 NH4 groups attached to, in this case, 1 SO4...

If you are referring to when they wrote NH42, then it is simply without the parentheses.

The compound formed between NH4+ and NO3- is called Ammonium nitrate, it, like NaCl, will form a salt. The formula for this compound is (NH4)(NO3).

The bonding structure looks something like this, which you may find to be a somewhat similar configuration to what you come across in table salt, NaCl.

There are a couple possible avenues one can take to remove the Mg(2+) from chlorophyll to form pheophytin.

One is simply heating green leaves, denaturing the cell membranes that release acids, which displace the Mg ions with hydrogens. Another way uses oxalic acid to displace the Mg ion...

Here's an ACS paper outlining an experiment using another acid and a series of concentrations.