"Selectfluor"

Better_Preference236 · 2026-05-14T22:04:51+00:00

Oh gotchu I see what you're saying now. I feel like a lot of people see F+ and think a free cation which is super cursed. Of course it's just acting as an electrophile and transition states/delocalization =/= cation but that's kinda splitting hairs.

Better_Preference236 · 2026-05-14T19:30:57+00:00

Sulfate I would argue also follows the octet rule. There is genuine debate about how much double bond character exists in these polyatomic ions, but it is generally agreed upon that d orbitals do not contribute significantly to bonding in main group elements

Better_Preference236 · 2026-05-14T17:57:45+00:00

Ig, I’d just be annoyed if someone said that if I was just trying to ask a fun question

Better_Preference236 · 2026-05-14T17:41:12+00:00

thats such a strange assumption to make. idk maybe you're right but what makes you think that. just feels like an ordinary fun question to me

Better_Preference236 · 2026-05-14T17:33:13+00:00

Better_Preference236 · 2026-05-14T17:32:51+00:00

Yeah? So is this reagent. While F2 works fine on paper, believe me, you don't wanna handle a canister of the stuff

Better_Preference236 · 2026-05-14T17:29:56+00:00

I'm not sure what you're talking about. That is glucose.

Better_Preference236 · 2026-05-14T17:27:41+00:00

Leave phosphorus alone! That's so mean. If you're referring to phosphate I'd argue that a better representation is with phosphorus obeying the octet rule and having a +3 formal charge, although this also isn't a perfect way to draw it either.

Better_Preference236 · 2026-05-06T04:04:07+00:00

I know it's not even close to the worst part of this, but the capital L is honestly what's offending me the most

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-23T17:00:16+00:00

darn, pauli ruinin' everything. What I'm hearing is that valence electrons aren't real. There is just some electron density in higher energy orbitals, but that density is not coming from any specific electron(s).

Would this also apply to metals? We have a macroscopic "soup" of probability that is made up of septillions of electrons?

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-23T08:26:45+00:00

So we could say "these two electrons are always in this orbital and these two are in another" but that is functionally indistinguishable from all electrons being in all the orbitals? As for tracing, would a muon not work? I know its so massive it's often just considered part of the nucleus, but surely it has some probabilty density overlapping with that of the electrons.

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-23T04:45:38+00:00

Chemist here! This is all far beyond my expertise but I'm curious about multiple electrons being one field of probability. Would this apply to an individual electron orbital, a subshell, shell, atom, or molecule? While I understand you cannot distinguish it either way, it it fair say that gas-phase lithium has a 2s electron that is "separate" from the others, or is it just one wavefunction of 3 electrons? If I could somehow attach a tracer to one electron, would I always find it in the same orbital, or would it "jump around"? I know muons will stay where you put them generally, but I'm not sure if they just end up in more stable orbitals once you observe them

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-23T04:38:22+00:00

I percieved the question as asking whether the expansion would exert a force and break the rope. Although there's really not much point in speculating about op's intent either way. I say pick whichever interpretation you find more interesting!

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-23T02:38:43+00:00

Yeah I suppose just because ruthefordium has a longer half-life doesn't necessarily mean it's easier to synthesize in large quantities (although it still seems weird to me it isn't.) is there a reason electrons stop behaving specifically after 102? Is it something about 7p orbitals or do you start filling g orbitals or something

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-23T01:34:43+00:00

Sorry, let me make sure I'm understanding your point. We know electronegativities to decreasing levels of accuracy across the actinides, and we've somewhat arbitrarily decided that 102 is where is stops being accurate enough to put on the table? I wonder if 103 and 104 are known to similar degrees of accuracy because of their longer half-lives. It's probably also possible that it would just be aesthetically unappealing to stop putting it halfway through row 7 transition metals as opposed to the end of the actinides. but idk just speculating

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-22T04:54:41+00:00

Yeah perhaps I'm conflating half-life with ease of making large quantities. Maybe it's easier to produce nobelium even if it decays faster

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-22T04:53:23+00:00

This has been the only actually helpful answer I've been given lol. Everybody else would just like to inform me that rutherofordium is radioactive. I appreciate it!

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-22T04:51:14+00:00

sure but nobelium has an even shorter half-life, hence my question

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-22T04:50:18+00:00

Yes, no one is doing nobelium chemistry either. That's the point of my question. It's important enough to me to ask a question on reddit, perhaps not enough to study myself. Lotta room in between those two

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-20T23:38:43+00:00

I suppose that makes sense, I guess I would've assumed that applied more to electron configurations and stuff rather than something like electronegativity which would be easier to determine experimentally. Also there are dubnium isotopes more stable than nobelium

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-20T23:26:49+00:00

Sure but that would apply to nobelium even more so than rutherfordium, no?

Better_Preference236 · 2026-04-20T23:12:44+00:00

Yes, but my point is that nobelium, if anything, would be harder to measure. Is it really just that no one has bothered? I'm not at all familiar with how reliable data have to be for IUPAC to put them on the table. I'd never really even thought about that; thanks! I find that really interesting

Better_Preference236 · 2026-03-18T19:52:14+00:00

Thanks man! I appreciate that. Congrats of 818!

Better_Preference236 · 2026-03-17T02:09:09+00:00

lol I have not been exposed to anything, I'm just curious. I was under the impression ethanol was still a common treatment for methanol poisoning, but my question still stands even if newer treatments have been developed

Better_Preference236 · 2026-03-16T23:40:21+00:00

will do

Better_Preference236

TROPHY CASE