4 ms·

Probably at least one part of our current electrochemical model will be considered hilariously wrong, on the same level of wrongness as the planetary model of t

Probably at least one part of our current electrochemical model will be considered hilariously wrong, on the same level of wrongness as the planetary model of the atom is considered today. Perhaps our hopes of the island of stability [0] will be dashed. Economists and mathematicians will eventually have a conversation which upends all known slogans of economics, forming a new school. It happens every few decades. The era of antibiotics is drawing to a close, as antibiotic resistance continues to grow. Meanwhile, phage therapy [1] is still being discovered but likely will give us a route to a kind of antibacterial and antibiotic therapy which is not as broad-spectrum as our existing drugs. Similarly, chemotherapy may give way to more targeted ways to deal with cancers, and eventually we might see some of these harsher treatments as akin to the overuse of radiotherapy during the era of radioactive quackery [2]. High fructose corn syrup may yet have its reckoning. Strangely, before 2020, this wouldn't have been thinkable, but we know from history that the Great Depression and World Wars changed the composition of dishes all around the world and even in industrialized recipes. The pandemic may yet change peoples' diets in ways which we won't understand for a decade or two, and the proper nutritional correction may take another few decades after that. Our children may be sincere about dealing with climate change. If so, then they may fly less, shrink standing armies, forbid the import/export of oil, drive less, set the thermostat a couple degrees hotter, or take many other relatively minor changes to parts of society which we usually imagine not changing at all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_quackery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_quackery

xkcd-sucks 6y ago
Chemistry is all about good-enough approximations, of which the planetary model is one, for simple organic reactions at least. Doubt it's going away
- Kednicma 6y ago
  For simple organic reactions, the shape of benzene [0] matters. Benzene has its quirky ring shape thanks to pi bonds [1], which only make sense in a 3D orbital model. The planetary model already has trouble with benzene formation and reactions. Another good example is water, whose hydrogen atoms are physically positioned almost entirely within the oxygen atom, according to the planetary model. Water's actual orbitals [2] have massive "echo" interactions on the hydrogen sides, which "push" the electrons onto one side of the molecule. Doing this with orbital mechanics alone would be, at a minimum, a headache. The essential main problem with the planetary model is in the word "planetes" or "wanderer"; electrons are not exactly point charges whizzing about the nucleus at high speed (although they kind of are, because of gold's color and other properties) but more like smeared-out across an orbital. Think of soft electron-butter being spread by a galactic butter knife. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_bond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_bond [2] http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/h2o_orbitals.html http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/h2o_orbitals.html
ComputerGuru 6y ago
> Our children may be sincere about dealing with climate change. Indeed they may. And we can either teach them to encourage it or ignore them and not even do that small part.
kortilla 6y ago
> If so, then they may fly less, shrink standing armies, forbid the import/export of oil, drive less, set the thermostat a couple degrees hotter, It would be sad if their reaction is this pathetic. We need much more drastic changes than that right now, let alone 18 years from now. The thermostat matters fuck-all compared to modernizing the insulation and getting renewable power to the house.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  And I’m not sure why the “import and export” of oil is mentioned here. I guess there are some marginal reductions in emissions if you move it around, but the big supertankers are pretty efficient. Really it sounds more like some ploy to keep America using less oil, without outright saying that, and, well... the idea must date to before we became one of the top producers in the world. I guess it could work for Europeans if they’re really, really willing to suffer for it (and it does spite Russia, which isn’t nothing in terms of European geopolitics)
  - Kednicma 6y ago
    I mention oil because it's a genuine part of the political window today (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Tom Steyer all supported banning oil exports, but I'm having trouble finding primary sources; Biden also may limit oil exports). What people discuss today, they may do tomorrow. I understand what you're reading into, but the main reasons to limit oil exports and imports are simpler than that. First, as you say, the USA is a massive oil producer. We compete directly with OPEC. We are also one of the largest oil consumers. Unsurprisingly, politicians like Bernie therefore have reasoned that it would be a sane protectionist and mercantile move to limit oil exports, keeping USA oil in the USA and thus limiting the need for oil imports. It's just cheaper that way; while not all oil is alike, crude oil is fungible enough to make this feasible. Also like you say, spiting Russia is important, although OPEC may fall apart before too long. There's a lot of handwaving here and anything could happen.
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      > It's just cheaper that way; while not all oil is alike, crude oil is fungible enough to make this feasible. If it really was cheaper that way, there would be no need to intervene. But maybe some of the expense is caused by regulations which don't make sense. Could I get you to consider repealing the Jones Act so that it's legal to ship oil between different ports in the US using tankers? (Technically it doesn't make the tankers illegal on the face of it. It just requires them to be US built, owned, and crewed by citizens, like all other use of boats in the US. There are no tankers built in the US today; there aren't many boats built at all. Puerto Rico and Hawaii suffer in particular as a result must import key supplies from outside the US.) Yeah, you'd still be burning oil to move oil, but it's not like sending it in trains and pipelines is free either.

xkcd-sucks 6y ago

Chemistry is all about good-enough approximations, of which the planetary model is one, for simple organic reactions at least. Doubt it's going away

Kednicma 6y ago
For simple organic reactions, the shape of benzene [0] matters. Benzene has its quirky ring shape thanks to pi bonds [1], which only make sense in a 3D orbital model. The planetary model already has trouble with benzene formation and reactions. Another good example is water, whose hydrogen atoms are physically positioned almost entirely within the oxygen atom, according to the planetary model. Water's actual orbitals [2] have massive "echo" interactions on the hydrogen sides, which "push" the electrons onto one side of the molecule. Doing this with orbital mechanics alone would be, at a minimum, a headache. The essential main problem with the planetary model is in the word "planetes" or "wanderer"; electrons are not exactly point charges whizzing about the nucleus at high speed (although they kind of are, because of gold's color and other properties) but more like smeared-out across an orbital. Think of soft electron-butter being spread by a galactic butter knife. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_bond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_bond [2] http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/h2o_orbitals.html http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/h2o_orbitals.html

ComputerGuru 6y ago

> Our children may be sincere about dealing with climate change. Indeed they may. And we can either teach them to encourage it or ignore them and not even do that small part.

kortilla 6y ago

> If so, then they may fly less, shrink standing armies, forbid the import/export of oil, drive less, set the thermostat a couple degrees hotter, It would be sad if their reaction is this pathetic. We need much more drastic changes than that right now, let alone 18 years from now. The thermostat matters fuck-all compared to modernizing the insulation and getting renewable power to the house.

fennecfoxen 6y ago
And I’m not sure why the “import and export” of oil is mentioned here. I guess there are some marginal reductions in emissions if you move it around, but the big supertankers are pretty efficient. Really it sounds more like some ploy to keep America using less oil, without outright saying that, and, well... the idea must date to before we became one of the top producers in the world. I guess it could work for Europeans if they’re really, really willing to suffer for it (and it does spite Russia, which isn’t nothing in terms of European geopolitics)
- Kednicma 6y ago
  I mention oil because it's a genuine part of the political window today (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Tom Steyer all supported banning oil exports, but I'm having trouble finding primary sources; Biden also may limit oil exports). What people discuss today, they may do tomorrow. I understand what you're reading into, but the main reasons to limit oil exports and imports are simpler than that. First, as you say, the USA is a massive oil producer. We compete directly with OPEC. We are also one of the largest oil consumers. Unsurprisingly, politicians like Bernie therefore have reasoned that it would be a sane protectionist and mercantile move to limit oil exports, keeping USA oil in the USA and thus limiting the need for oil imports. It's just cheaper that way; while not all oil is alike, crude oil is fungible enough to make this feasible. Also like you say, spiting Russia is important, although OPEC may fall apart before too long. There's a lot of handwaving here and anything could happen.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    > It's just cheaper that way; while not all oil is alike, crude oil is fungible enough to make this feasible. If it really was cheaper that way, there would be no need to intervene. But maybe some of the expense is caused by regulations which don't make sense. Could I get you to consider repealing the Jones Act so that it's legal to ship oil between different ports in the US using tankers? (Technically it doesn't make the tankers illegal on the face of it. It just requires them to be US built, owned, and crewed by citizens, like all other use of boats in the US. There are no tankers built in the US today; there aren't many boats built at all. Puerto Rico and Hawaii suffer in particular as a result must import key supplies from outside the US.) Yeah, you'd still be burning oil to move oil, but it's not like sending it in trains and pipelines is free either.