Timeline for Help understanding how "steric effects" are distinct from "electronic effects"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2021 at 17:28 | comment | added | Nat | @matt_black: If the distinction's between [steric, electronic effects] and [non-steric, electronic effects], then if we assume "electronic" is provided by context, then they'd be "steric effects" and "non-steric effects". | |
| Feb 18, 2021 at 14:48 | comment | added | matt_black | Arguably, if we had the computational power to fully solve the complete Schrodinger equation for molecules, there would be no distinction between "electronic" and "steric" effects as the solution would consider all interactions and produce the full configuration space of the molecule. But we can't. So chemists need to make the pragmatic distinction between electronic and steric effects to make any sense of their data. | |
| Feb 17, 2021 at 14:29 | history | edited | Nat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Feb 17, 2021 at 14:06 | comment | added | uhoh |
+1 okay thanks, this has given me much more to think about than I'd planned, I'll take some time think about it :-)
|
|
| Feb 17, 2021 at 13:45 | comment | added | Nat | @uhoh: I'm saying that sterics and electronics should be spoken of separately rather than assumed related in specific ways. For example, yes, there are non-electronic steric effects, e.g. steric isotope effects. | |
| Feb 17, 2021 at 13:43 | comment | added | uhoh | "electronic... if they're related... to electronic charge." So are you saying that steric effects are not related to charge? If not by the Coulomb force, by what effect can one molecule respond to the shape of another? | |
| Feb 17, 2021 at 13:33 | comment | added | Nat | @uhoh: Generally we just say "electronic" when we're referring to electronic effects as opposed to non-electronic effects, e.g. a kinetic-isotope effect. If we don't need to draw such a distinction, we merely don't say either "electronic" or "non-electric". The Wikipedia articles attempt to make a case for a system in which sterics and electronics are dichotomous, rather than just using the "non-" prefix, which is just.. well, honestly it's just really silly. | |
| Feb 17, 2021 at 13:24 | comment | added | Nat | Mostly just trying to clarify some confusion I perceived as possibly being reflected in the Wikipedia articles, where "electronic effect" seemed to be presented as a synonym for "non-steric effect". | |
| Feb 17, 2021 at 13:19 | history | answered | Nat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |