There’s a thing called three-body problem in science which tells that if there are more than three objects it’s basically impossible to describe the motions of individuals objects. There are more variable than are equations. That’s the reason Bohr’s atomic model failed. https://twitter.com/jasonpremo/status/1247336926279077891
Physical chemistry “pretends” that there is only one electron between two nuclei in a molecule by estimating two electrons as one electron and then create a set of molecular oribitals by linearly superimposing atomic orbitals (of the estimated electron) with each other.
I just talked about a chemical bonding. Then go to molecules that are non-linear with atoms beyond Lithium in periodic table. You’ve got multiple orbitals that can’t just be added like H2+. We then use the group theory to take symmetry into account and add orbitals.
Molecular orbitals take the symmetry of a molecule into account only when we know the spatial structure of it, so it has no predictability. To overcome this Linus Pauling developed theory of “orbital hybridization”, which is making hybrid orbitals out of AOs and then adding them.
Yet orbital hybridization fails to tell much about the energy distribution of MOs. So the MO theory and orbital hybridization theory co-exist, each of which fails to explain molecular chemistry by itself.
I’ve been just talking about individual molecules. When it comes chemical reaction, these theories cannot tell much about the outcome of it. MOs are used to create models of energy level of reactants to explain and hopefully predict reactions...
but only experiments with real reactants can tell whether the devised reactions really happen. There are simply too many variables, and it’s just impossible to build up a model that tells everything from an electron.
That’s the reason, while chemistry borrows a lot from physics, it’s an independent field of research, and no serious physicist even pretends that one “knows” everything about chemistry.
In science, just like in the case of MO theory and orbital hybridization, various theories tend to co-exist, focusing on discrete aspects of natural phenomena, intending to best explain them with their own ways. During the co-existence they also compete and one may prevail.
Neoclassical economics is like trying to explain kinetics of chemical reaction (how fast a reaction is) with an electron. Yeah, you may come up with something, but how meaningful that would be?
The problem of neoclassical economics, besides its at best mediocre base, fails to not only explain but also predict anything happening in reality. It does not do its outstanding job.
Another problem is that, when you point out this, the usual response is “you should read the literature”. Neoclassical economists are a club where members constantly circle-jerk with each other. And they just have too much power.
You can follow @MattHammington.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: