Our understanding of science mostly advances in small incremental and nuanced steps (which can nevertheless be controversial) but sometimes the steps can be much larger jumps into the unknown, and hence potentially more controversial as well. More accurately, it might be e.g. relatively unexplored territory for say a chemist, but more familiar stomping ground for say a physicist.
On 8th August this year, I posted on a fascinating article that had just appeared in Science[cite]10.1126/science.1188002[/cite] in which the crystal structure was reported of two small molecules, 1,3-dimethyl cyclobutadiene and carbon dioxide, entrapped together inside a calixarene cavity.
In 1890, chemists had to work hard to find out what the structures of their molecules were, given they had no access to the plethora of modern techniques we are used to in 2010. For example, how could they be sure what the structure of naphthalene was? Well, two such chemists, William Henry Armstrong (1847-1937) and his student William Palmer Wynne (1861-1950;
Reactions in cavities can adopt quite different characteristics from those in solvents. Thus first example of the catalysis of the Diels-Alder reaction inside an organic scaffold was reported by Endo, Koike, Sawaki, Hayashida, Masuda, and Aoyama[cite]10.1021/ja964198s[/cite], where the reaction shown below is speeded up very greatly in the presence of a crystalline lattice of the anthracene derivative shown below. A Diels-Alder reaction.
Curly arrows are something most students of chemistry meet fairly early on. They rapidly become hard-wired into the chemists brain. They are also uncontroversial! Or are they? Consider the following very simple scheme. Curly arrow pushing It represents protonation of an alkene by an acid.
The rather presumptious title assumes the laws and fundamental constants of physics are the same everywhere (they may not be). With this constraint (and without yet defining what is meant by strongest), consider the three molecules: Property (CCSD/aug-cc-pVTZ) N≡N (H-N≡N) + (H-N≡N-H) 2+ NN length, Å 1.0967 1.0915 1.0795 NN stretch, cm -1 2418.8 2356.4
One approach to reporting science which is perhaps better suited to the medium of a blog than a conventional journal article is the opportunity to follow ideas in unexpected, even unconventional directions. Thus my third attempt, like a dog worrying a bone, to explore hypervalency.
Chemistry as the inspiration for art! The inspiration was the previous post. As for whether its art, you decide for yourself.
In the last post, IH 7 was examined to see if it might exhibit true hypervalency. The iodine, despite its high coordination, turned out not to be hypervalent, with its (s/p) valence shell not exceeding eight electrons (and its d-shell still with 10, and the 6s/6p shells largely unoccupied). Instead, the 14 valence electrons (7 from H, 7 from iodine) fled to the H…H regions.
The Wikipedia page on hypervalent compounds reveals that the concept is almost as old as that of normally valent compounds.
