<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>physics on voxel.esq</title><link>https://voxel.esq/physics/</link><description>Recent content in physics on voxel.esq</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><atom:link href="https://voxel.esq/physics/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>molecular geometry: geometry vs. measured vs. QM</title><link>https://voxel.esq/physics/molecular-geometry/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://voxel.esq/physics/molecular-geometry/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scaffold — to be filled from BSM-SG (main book) chapter by chapter.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The claim under test: molecular geometry follows from the &lt;em&gt;geometry and
packing of proton substructures&lt;/em&gt; — you can see the next atom&amp;rsquo;s shape in your
head, no orbital cartoons. The honest test is symmetric: a geometric picture
that &lt;em&gt;postdicts&lt;/em&gt; a known shape (&amp;ldquo;roughly tetrahedral because the prisms pack
that way&amp;rdquo;) is doing exactly what hybridization does with lobes — the thing
BSM-SG rightly calls retrofit. To beat QM, geometry has to &lt;strong&gt;output the
number&lt;/strong&gt; from structure, with no fitted constant, and match the
diffractometer.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>