Timeline for How Does Our Current Understanding of QFT Affect Chemistry and Biology?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30 at 16:44 | comment | added | Mateo | @naturallyInconsistent Oh, tyvm :) | |
| Jul 30 at 14:14 | comment | added | naturallyInconsistent | Yes, I do. On Wikipedia on Relativistic Quantum Chemistry, there is a citation that is freely accessible, PDF and all: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.1929.0094 | |
| Jul 30 at 13:52 | comment | added | Mateo | @naturallyInconsistent do you happen to know Dirac's reference? :) | |
| Jul 30 at 7:43 | comment | added | naturallyInconsistent | It was Dirac that said that. He was very famously pooh-pooh-ing his own equation's use in chemistry, and it took many decades before we realised that the colour of gold is due to relativistic corrections, and so forth. | |
| Jul 29 at 23:46 | comment | added | FlatterMann | If he said that, then Feynman was wrong. Spin and fermion/boson statistics requires relativistic theory. One can't even get the periodic table out of the Schroedinger equation without the ad-hoc Pauli exclusion principle. I kind of doubt that he actually said that and if he did, then he had a really bad day (which did happen a few times in his life, unfortunately). The "small" relativistic corrections to masses are, by the way, the foundation of precision mass spectrometry. Try to do modern organic chemistry in the lab without it and see where you get... | |
| Jul 29 at 18:31 | history | edited | Mateo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Corrected minor mistakes or typos
|
| Jul 29 at 18:26 | history | answered | Mateo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |