Talk:Chemistry/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Chemistry (etymology)

Seeing as how this is such an in-depth topic, with so many sources and nuances, I will move all of this to its own page and group the etymology paragraphs from both alchemy and chemistry on one page (with links to main). Let's all work to build a good article there. --Sadi Carnot 12:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved to: Talk:Chemistry (etymology)


[edit] addition to the related links

i think that we may all find it benifical to list organic chemistry as a related topic. It is a small alteration that simply eases the use of reading —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.179.232.254 (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] History of chemistry summary section

There seems to be some alchemy leaking into the history of chemistry section. I'm not sure if there is an agenda to these additions as well. As important and influential a figure as Geber was he is not considered the father of modern chemistry. His work was far back in what is generally considered the alchemical period and most of his work was concerned with the proper mixing of his four elements (not earth,air, fire and water but close) to transmute metals. It is undeniable that he achieved real chemistry and is by far the most important chemistry figure of his time. The distinguishing feature of chemistry versus alchemy is the application of the scientific method to the study of matter. I would not say that Geber's work did not have some strong elements of this but the same can be said about Hermes (or the egyptian alchemical school that are represented by the legend). It is the formalism of the scientific method in the 17th and 18th centuries that make chemistry chemistry. Additionally I am not sure that this needs to be debated in the summary of the history article here.--Nick Y. 16:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten parts of this section to both correct this and make the whole thing more complete and accurate.--Nick Y. 17:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Nick Y. isn't going to like me, as some alchemy leaked in once more (my fault). The sense I presented the alchemy in is to present the problems which chemistry ended up having to solve. I kept as much original text as possible, but ended up having to add quite a bit. I was dissatisfied with this history as being all but a series of disconnected facts, supposedly written that way for brevity. There was very little sense of evolution; of chemistry evolving out of a need for a scientific method; and of a connection with the evolution of mankind (I provided a cursory connection; enough to indicate one existed). One of the main criticisms of alchemy was that it lacked reproducibility. I also disagree with an implication in an earlier version of this history that Chemistry had to be somehow separated from Philosophy. In fact, it badly needed a whole lot more philosophy. Descartes and others served this end by discussing scientific method. Many today (including myself) still believe science and mathematics to be nothing more than a branch of philosophy. And what is science, math, and philosophy other than the search for answers to questions that concern us? Science, math and philosophy only differ by how the search is done. -- Paul King 21:13 EDT, 5 January 2007.
While the quality of your writing and understand is much better than what was previously being corrected, the reason for breviety is that there is an entire article on the subject. In general when there is a main article on a subject on a separate page we usually create a breif summary of about a paragraph as a teaser or introduction to the thorough and complete article. I would suggest that you reconsider duplicating the entire effort and filling up so much space on this page. Your contributions could be better directed towards improving History of Chemistry.--Nick Y. 07:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Figured about as much. I don't have time to correct it right away, but I will some time this week. Pking123 09:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I used to be user user:pking123. I have re-worked the history section, making several subsections, each pointing to a different main article. I got rid of the Nobel Prize section, leaving only the link to the main article; and made "Chemical Industry" into its own section (it's not a history topic anyway). The reason for chopping the article up became apparent when the 
{{main}}
tag could hold only so many parameters. I had at least 8, where the Wiki stopped at around 4 or 5, then flagged an error. In terms of length, however, the History section is now under half of its former length. --Paul EJ King 14:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Image

The current first image that strikes the reader is that of a helium atom. The way it is labelled, quarks and all, it is more relevant to physics than to Chemistry. A better representation of chemistry would be the periodic table, however I cannot find a suitable image on Wikipedia or Commons. Can anyone help? LukeSurl 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting version of the periodic table:
px
-- Itub 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but to the untrained eye it may look more like a religious shrine than a periodic table. LukeSurl 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the periodic table itself as a symbolic representation in the public domain? Is the problem that certain representations might be copyrighted? Earendilmm 18:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's right yeah. I just can't find an image in the PD which actually looks good. I guess someone could make one. LukeSurl 11:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... what is it again? I mean, it does look cool and all, but...

yeah, not very useful, don't you think?

[edit] atom model

The atom model with the electrons in perfect orbits are not very representative of reality. Without any explanation of this model, the image is very missleading. I Suggest to remove the image until someone find a better image.

  • ask 10 people their opinion on an image you will get 10 different opinions half of them negative, in that way no image in Wiki will survive. Better rule: not remove but replace the image with something better. And please sign your comments V8rik 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not a question of liking the picture or not. The picture is wrong the way it is presented. The picture is clearly telling the reader that the electrons are orbiting the nucleous like planets are orbiting the sun. This is wrong. I cannot understand there is a policy of not deleting wrong information before it can be replaced. Cheers.
There is no diagram of an atom that is both accurate and informative. I would say the bigger error in this one and most diagrams is the relative size of the nucleus and electrons to the atomic radius, which if represented accurately would either appear as ~a blank image or would take up a very large canvas with a couple of barely noticeable specks. I would also note that electrons have momentum and may travel in any direction at any particular moment in time and being most likely in s-orbitals these are represented in likely directions of motion. Of course freeze-framing electron motion has never been achieved but if we are to believe that electrons have a particle nature to them even in part this would be a reasonable representation of that. Although the image has a hint of the Bohr model, I would tend to agree with "find a better one" and then we will talk about it.--Nick Y. 21:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The diagram is basically a cartoon that people would associate with atoms and with chemistry. It is certainly not a realistic representation. But cartoons can be useful, especially when realistic representations are not (such as the blank image with tiny specks that Nick Y. mentioned). For example, cartoons are used often in biochemistry and in biology, and they are not that realistic either. The representation of myoglobin on the right is an example. Of course, there is a difference, and that is that biochemists actually use cartoon representations of proteins sometimes, while chemists don't really use cartoon representations of atoms at all (except for teaching general chemistry). My conclusion is that the cartoon used in the chemistry article is just used for decoration purposes, rather than as an atomic model. There's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. --Itub 07:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the current image, as it seems to pertain more to physics than chemistry. I'm still holding out for a good periodic table image to surface. LukeSurl t c 12:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this one

from

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Nuvola_apps_edu_science.png  ? DanielDemaret 06:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandria library

"Egyptian alchemy [5,000 BC – 400 BC], Alexandria has the world’s largest library"

Somewhat misleading. It's been created between 300 BC and 200 BC, it seems (more likely between 300 bc and 250 BC). That's what the famous online encyclopedia "wikipedia" says anyway: Alexandria library. 82.241.221.24 14:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll clarify the text. --Sadi Carnot 17:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced

The unreferenced tag was added to the top of the article today without any justification given. This seems a little broad, so I've removed it, creating this for people to discuss things. I think it would be more constructive if [citation needed] could be added at the points people want referencing. LukeSurl 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is general, chemistry. It has a further reading section at the bottom with some chemistry books. Should it be made more clear where in which book what information can be found? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • We do not want to go down that road. I think the content should be consistent with general chemistry books otherwise you end up with a footnote every two words. Lets focus on issues where preferences differ and try to limit yourself to the {{fact}} tag. V8rik 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I added the unreferenced tag is because over half the article, more specifically everything below the "Subdisciplines" section does not have any reference of footnotes.--Sefringle 07:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a general sentence to the References section to clarify that any book on General Chemistry is a reference for this material. However, the section on "Etymology" does need specific references. On a quick glance it appears that Chemistry (etymology) needs more references than it has. I'm not sure the two references there cover all the material. Once they are added to Chemistry (etymology) they can be copied back here. --Bduke 07:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please consult the recent Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines especially the section on uncontroversial knowledge Some statements are uncontroversial and widely known among people familiar with a discipline. Such facts may be taught in university courses, found in textbooks, or contained in multiple references in the research literature (most importantly in review articles). The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement. In addition, such dense referencing can obscure the logical interdependence of statements. Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources at the start (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify later statements for which no in-line citation is provided.

Also the etymology section refers the the dedicated etymology page and this is the place where references go. There is no point to have references in duplicate when you have a main page tag. The page itself did lack some references but on the other hand the topic was discussed at length WITH references. I took the liberty to collect two references from the talk page and inserted then into the article. Please Sefringle specify what material you find controversial or what specific parts you disagree with V8rik 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case I have placed the wrong tag. I'll replace it with the correct tag.--Sefringle 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


  • the tag will go again, please specify in what way you challenge content in this article. It should be clear by now that the article contains plenty secondary literature for you to consult. V8rik 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
specificly, the introduction has only one source, and I can't find any in the history. How am I supposed to know it isn't WP:OR?--Sefringle 23:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Read any of the books in the "reading list for university students", or in fact any chemistry or general science textbook. See the detailed citation guideline above. Iridium77 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The guideline says it still needs at least one source.--Sefringle 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please Sefringle, consult the general references or identify controversial elements in the text. Perhaps if you can point us to one article that you have contributed to with no doubt many references you can set a good example. V8rik 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think DNA is a good example of how an article should be sourced, expecially since it was recently a featured article. But as I usuaully don't edit scientific articles, the Scientific guideline doesn't really apply to the articles I edited. But getting back to the guideline, it says "The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement. In addition, such dense referencing can obscure the logical interdependence of statements. Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources at the start (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify later statements for which no in-line citation is provided." Hope this clarifies things up.--Sefringle 05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


I am retracting my collaboration to this article let someone else sort out this mess. V8rik 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So wait, this whole controvery is because the intro "Chemistry is X, chemistry studies Y" is uncited? Seems pretty likely that could be supported by ref 3 (first <ref> in the "Introduction" section) or the Chang text, or any other gen-chem textbook. If there are specific issues that need citations, that's what the {{cn}} tag is for. An article that mostly doesn't use inline citations because guidelines tell us that such a style is inappropriate, seems like a blanket "need more inline cites" is a tag is pretty useless...please be constructive here (what specifically needs to be fixed). DMacks 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britannica 1911

Hi, here is Britannica's 1911 90-page article on "chemistry". I think it will be a good guideline to follow as we build this article. --Sadi Carnot 17:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed section titled 'chemical reactions'

"==Chemical Reactions== Chemical reactions are when two chemicals react to form a different substance."

Removed from article, because it's not a precise definition. It's also explained in the rest of the article. --Bfesser 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's get rid of the External Links

Wikipedia is not a web directory. The topic is too general; there are thousands of websites about chemistry. The selection currently found in this article is arbitrary (any selection would be). In general the links do not comply with WP:EL. And we have people constantly adding links to their websites, some of which are only tangentially related with the topic and with dubious encyclopedic value. The only semi-reasonable option IMO, other than dispensing with the external links section altogether, would be to link only to a few web directories, which will do a better job of having large collections of links about chemistry. --Itub 16:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should remove the lot, but we might expand the "See also" list to articles on WP that have good external links. --Bduke 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the remove all suggestion. It would be nice to have a few very select high quality external links about this broad subject, but that may be impractical.--Nick Y. 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Let's stop being eurocentric and add more than one line about chemistry in the Arab world

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.173.120 (talk • contribs)

agreed, it was indeed an arab man Kitab as-Sumum who was the first to make all his findings public. And the arab world, during the time of the crusades, had a firmer understanding of medical applications of chemistry. They actually did well treated illnesses and cleaning wounds, unlike the european counterparts which merely used hospitals as places to keep the sick away from the healthy. There was also the first standardization of scientific equipment by the muslim world where both research and pharmacuticals would be checked to ensure presicse and accurate measurement. Also, theough this is hardly chemistry, the arab number system was much easier for scientists and chemists to use compared to the inferior roman numeral system. As european society was busy trying to make gold during the dark ages. The arab world flourished, in more than science and chemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.232.254 (talk • contribs)

[edit] "Chemistry" has a Psychological definition which was totally omitted

Chemistry between people certainly should get at least a single line in an article on the word. There's a definition of Romantic Chemistry as being mutual, romantic and sexual here: http://www.eChemistry.com/romantic_chemistry/how_it_was_decoded.htm Maybe there should be an article on Romantic Chemistry and a link to it here in this article. Glennenin 12:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't have much to do with chemistry as the science of the structure and transformation of matter, which is the topic of this article. There is already an article in interpersonal chemistry, which is already linked from chemistry (disambiguation). --Itub 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear Chemistry ?!?

I don't think nuclear chemistry should be listed as a main subdiscipline. It should be in the list at the end of the section along with the likes of organometallic, surface, etc. It is not a division in many (any?) graduate programs in the United States. Nuclear engineering, on the other hand, is a significant field of engineering at many universities. It is misleading to list nuclear chemistry in detailed form when it's not a significant subdiscipline at this point. Anyone else support my suggestion to remove the detailed description of nuclear chemistry and move it into the list instead? Johnny1926 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about that. I'm sorry to say that I'd rather remove materials chemistry, given that it doesn't even have a wikipedia article already, and we already have materials science in the list at the bottom (I know it's not the same thing, but closely related, and materials science at least has an article). --Itub 07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am against this, maybe it is the group of chemists that I know and the fact that we have some excelent nuclear chemists at my uni, but I know a whole bunch of chemists who use neutron activation analysis, Pixie, Pygmy(sp?)etc. --PedroDaGr8 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry as subset of physics

...is being added often by an anon as a prefix to the first sentence (even before the topic word), and quickly reverted by several editors. Yes, chemistry is based on physics; yes, we already state this in the lead. I'm not opposed to saying it's "based on" or something like that, especially later in the lead paragraph where we mention the underlying physical/quantum/thermo/etc chemistry issues. Seems like anything more than that in the lead is massively undue weight. Especially as anon keeps adding it, it's a "single fact", pretty inappropriate for such a thing to dominate the whole topic word in the lead. Anyone else? Better get some consensus here, anon seems pretty determined. DMacks 02:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a troll, trying to upset the chemists! It should only be included if there is some authoritative person who is recorded as saying it (I could almost imagine Rutherford saying it....!). Even then, it's not a standard definition of chemistry, and as such it doesn't belong in the intro. Walkerma 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The editing history of this IP address certainly doesn't help me assume good faith. In any case, I don't think anyone would dispute that physics is more "fundamental"; it's just that this article is about chemistry and should begin by defining chemistry itself. Perhaps in some other article or subsection that talked in more detail about the relation between chemistry and physics or other sciences we could add well-sourced statements such as Rutherford's quote or the opinions of various philosophers of science. --Itub 07:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


It is important in understanding the definition of Chemistry that some scale/perspective is defined. This is not a slight on Chemistry, but rather an attempt to help people understand how the sciences are derived. Physics is a subset of Mathematics as all of its laws and principles are described mathematically (Physics is merely the subset of mathematics that describes the universe and observable nature), Chemistry is a subset of Physics as all of its laws and principles are described by Physics (Chemistry is merely a macroscopic study of the interactions of physical quantum- and subatomic- particles). Physics however, is not relegated to a scope as finely as Chemistry is; Physics extends beyond the Quantum scope, THROUGH Chemistry's scope, and beyond into relativity and cosmological realms. Therefore, Chemistry is indeed a subset of Physics, and it is important in understanding Chemistry that this basic fact is acknowledged, just as understanding that Physics is a subset of Mathematics is important to understanding Physics. Please set aside this knee-jerk reaction and unfounded offense and allow an accurate definition of the sciences to be presented here on Wikipedia.

Nobody's (I don't think) saying we shouldn't talk about the relation of chemistry to other "basic science"-like fields...to me, the place of one discpline relative to others (and their interface, and cross-polination) are quite interesting and appropriate for the article. The problem seems to be the heavy-handed wording of the information in this case. Chemistry is a subset of physics, but it's not "just a subset of physics". In fact, we already do describe in the lead how chemistry is about "[...] materials encountered in everyday life. According to modern chemistry, the physical properties of materials are generally determined by their structure at the molecular or atomic scale, which is itself defined by interatomic electromagnetic forces, and laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics from various fields of physics." Right there, second sentence after we say what chemistry is in the first sentence, we say that it's discipline that studies effects, certain aspects, or a subset of things that are called "physics". DMacks 20:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


However, since all fundamentals of Chemistry are based on laws and effects of Physics, Chemistry is indeed a subset of Physics. This wording is not heavy-handed, it is just accurate. Of course chemistry has focuses, merits, and reasons for study. It is a science, and nobody is arguing that. It is important for lay-people unfamiliar and unversed in math and science to understand that Chemistry is a subset of Physics, just as Physics is a subset of Mathematics, rather than hiding this later in the article and in vague terms. If more people understood what these sciences were, maybe there wouldn't be so many poorly informed people out there.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.5.43 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 May 2007

Seem to have two physics promoting anons (or one using two ips) who is/are determined to add this strong physics bias into the article. Yes, chemistry uses the laws and effects of Physics and just as physics it also uses the principles and tools of mathematics. However, it is not just a subset of physics - nor is physics A subset of mathematics. Mathematics is not science - it is more a tool used by physicists and chemists as they engage in their respective sciences. Yes, the sciences are all intertwined, but just as geology utilizes the principles of physics and chemistry to solve a different set of problems and establish a variety of independent scientific fields or specialities - geology is not a subset of anything. And just because a great physicist was a bit of a snob and referred to all else as stamp collecting or whatever that doesn't make it so -- and the quote shouldn't be used to define anything. Vsmith 00:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Can you imagine the response if an anonymous editor kept changing the physics page, so that the first sentence was "Chemistry and Materials Science are the useful applications of physics..."? The physics community would be rightfully outraged!

Starting the first sentence with a discussion of physics instead of chemistry will certainly confuse many readers. Can you imagine if the pages on molecular biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, linquistics, politics, etc, etc started with a sentence that read "The branch of physics that deals with XXXXX is called YYYY. ? True, these disciplines can be seen as the study of very complex systems that can theoretically be reduced to fundamental physical laws. Yet this introduction would be totally inappropriate.

I believe this editor has an axe to grind, trying again to prove that physicist are superior because they can derive the schrodinger equation, et al. Physics is wonderful. Modern chemistry could not function without the analytical instruments that are a gift of talented physicists and engineers. Thank you, thank you, thank you, physicists of the world. Now please let chemists define their own disciple. You can be certain we will give an appropriate acknowledgement of the relationship of chemistry to all other sciences. :-)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.136.110 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 5 May 2007


It seems like none of you read the explanations discussed above. Nobody is trying to devalue chemistry, people are just trying to explain chemistry to those unfamiliar with it. YES, physics is a subset of mathematics. Physics is the subset of mathematics that uses math to scientifically describe the universe. By the same token, chemistry is the subset of physics that uses physics to describe the formation of substances from physical quanta and interactions of compounds. This is not a hard concept people, and assuming that people can't read 5 words into a sentence to verify that they are indeed reading the Chemistry entry is an assumption that all people are retarded. I am embarrassed for our society that so many people that clearly don't understand this field think they are authorities enough to edit a fundamental defining characteristic of it. No, Mr. 192.101.136.110, nobody is trying to grind an axe or say that physics is better than chemistry. We are just trying to make an accurate definition of chemistry so that maybe dumbbells like you can figure it out.


Hey, notice how the main image for the Physics entry is a diagram showing and explaining the electron orbitals fundamental to Chemistry? That's because chemistry is based on physics. Because Chemistry is based on physics, concepts in chemistry are extrapolations of physical laws and phenomena. This makes chemistry a subset of physics. 'Subset' is not a bad word. Humans are a subset of Mammals. English is a subset of languages. You people need to get over yourselves, this is not about some ego-battle. This is about defining a word for people confused and unfamiliar with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.1.11 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 May 2007

Yes, and the article on Humans does not start, "A subset of mammals, humans are .." and this article should not start with "A subset of physics, chemistry ..". It has been widely discussed here on the talk page and there is no consensus to give such emphasis to chemistry being part of physics. Incidentally the bulk of the philosophers of chemistry do not think chemistry is a subset or indeed part of physics. --Bduke 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Stating that chemistry is a subset of physics is scientific reductionism. It is a viewpoint, an opinion if you will. It is not a fact and should not dominate the introduction to chemistry.
I think the user(s) making these edits should leave chemistry and related pages alone, as they are clearly unable to present a neutral point of view. Just look at some of the comments above: "maybe dumbbells like you can figure it out" - personal attack; "assuming that people can't read 5 words into a sentence" - misrepresenting diagreement with confusion. Whoever writes likes that should seriously reconsider their opinion on the purpose of Wikipedia and learn to engage with other contributors in a polite and respectful manner.
Ben 03:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your points made are well, but as all sciences overlap and no such clear distinctions are odvious, we must reason in the fact that to consider one science superior or subserviant to another disipline is somwhat short sided.

Chemistry as a subset of physics is sort of true. I had a physics prof say it best though. Physicists care about the fundamental properties, when it gets very complicated we don't care anymore and we give it to other people to figure out new techniques or laws based on physics. This applies to chemistry. Physicists care only to the point of using schroidger's equation or thermodynamics properties to describe a large collection of atoms. The rest is left up to the Chemist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsfontenot (talk • contribs)

Nope, chemists (and scientists other than physicists) don't really figure out laws based on physics; they figure out laws that are meaningful within the science in question. The laws in question are sometimes fuzzy and have exceptions, and are not what a physicist would call a law, but they work. Think about how an "ideal physicist" (that is, a physicist that is represented by a non-interacting point particle ;-) and an "ideal chemist" would address the problem of predicting the geometry of an organic molecule given its topology. The chemist would be able to figure it out in seconds based on approximate chemical theories before the physicist is done writing (let alone solving) Schrödinger's equation! Same goes for trying to predict the outcome of a reaction, the properties of a substance, etc. --Itub 08:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Although physics is useful to some degree to the chemist for the most part the first step to chemistry is to abandon all physics and approach the problem from the complete opposite direction: empirically rather than from first principles. As Itub pointed out this results in laws that work but have ~no relation to physics. They are generally different approaches to explaining natural phenomena. Chemistry is for the most part not a natural extension of physics. --Nick Y. 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry as a service science

Apparently there are some concerns that we chemists think that chemistry is the center of the universe, and that this article somehow reflects that. ;-) To temper this, there is something that should IMO be added to the article because it is an important concern among current chemists, as well as historians and philosophers of chemistry. Has chemistry become a "service science"? This is a view expressed by Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and Isabelle Stengers in their book A History of Chemistry, and by David M. Knight in Ideas in Chemistry: A History of the Science. The books are not freely available online, but some reviews or summaries are: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. One of them expresses the concern nicely: "The authors also address contentious issues of concern to contemporary scientists: whether chemistry has become a service science; whether its status has 'declined' because its value lies in assisting the leading-edge research activities of molecular geneticists and materials scientists; or whether it is redefining its agenda."[6]. I'm writing this here in the talk page instead of being bold because I'm not sure which would be the best place to add such information. Somewhere in the introduction? Should we create a subsection about the relationship between chemistry and the other sciences? In such a section we could mention, besides the issue of "service", other issues such as "reducibility". --Itub 08:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a matter of perspective. I think that it is just as easy to say that chemistry has taken over a large portion of biology at this point. Most biology/medical questions are basically chemistry problems. Research in these areas are now asking what is the underlying chemical reason for the phenomenom. I have heard that all the big problems in chemistry have been solved. I disagree. I think the orgin of life is a chemistry problem not a biological one. The function of cells is also a complex chemical question. The energy crisis/global warming is a chemistry problem. Nanotechnology is basically dominated by chemists. Check out Priestley Medalist George M. Whitesides' address "Revolutions In Chemistry" Chemical and Engineering News March 26, 2007 Volume 85, Number 13 pp. 12-17. M stone 22:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is a matter of perspective, but I have also seen several letters in Chemical and Engineering News by readers worried about this issue. Worried in the sense that chemistry departments seem to be shrinking or being "taken over" by the biologists and materials scientists. Less "pure" chemistry is being done, with a major chunk of the funding going now to things that have bio- or nano- as prefixes. ;-) That's just the way things go, and not necessarily a bad thing, depending on perspective. The "problem", so to speak, is that chemists can't play chemistry alone anymore, but need to work with (and sometimes for) the biologists. I'm not making this up; I cited two books by reputable historians who reached this conclusion by looking at the big picture. Many people may disagree (I'm not sure if I agree or disagree yet...), but it is a point that deserves mention in the article. --Itub 07:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to add, I think you are almost taking the same view of biology that our anonymous friend has toward chemistry from the point of view of physics. Do you really think you can predict how a drug works just using "chemistry"? Physiology is not that simple, it operates on its own level of complexity. That's why we need so many biological and clinical trials before launching a new drug! Some things are just impossible to predict from a reductionist point of view. Do you think global warming is a chemical problem? Certainly there's chemistry involved, but what about all the geophysics, ecology, oceanology, etc.? The Earth is more complex than a round-bottom flask with N2, O2, Ar, H2O, and CO2. And so on... --Itub 07:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that most of biology cannot be explained or described by chemistry. I would never characterize biology as a subset of chemistry. However, chemists are not working for biologist they are tackling important chemistry problems. Many recent advancements in biology and medicine are driven by a better understanding of the complex chemistry. The sequencing of the human genome and the field of proteomics are the study of the molecules aka chemistry. How do you study these huge molecules? Drug development is a chemistry problem since a drug is a molecule and thus must be identified and then the protein (another molecule) that it interacts with must also be identified. Of course it involves biology and medicine as well. Chemistry is becoming very interdisciplinary. I do think chemistry will play a big part in the energy problem and thus global warming. We need to develop all kinds of new things, such as solar cells, biodiesel, new sources of raw materials for plastics. Chemistry is far, far more complex than a round-bottom flask! M stone 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can physics decribe molecules?

Has the Schrödinger equation ever been solved for molecules? I don't mean an approximate solution. If so then chemistry is a subset of physics. If not then chemistry is distinct and separate describing an area of science that physics cannot. M stone 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This does indeed point to a serious problem. In strict quantum mechanics, molecular structure is not present. It only appears if we use the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. That approximation is deeply flawed, because QM says we must have a wave function of indistinguishable like particles which includes like nuclei as well as electrons, while the BO approximation gives us a function of indistinguishable electrons but distinguishable like-nuclei. This is one reason why philosophers of chemistry argue for the independence of chemistry and for it not being reducible to physics. It is a matter of current debate, and I am undecided. --Bduke 23:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Chemistry is a whole lot more than simple molecules. It is a common fallacy (IMHO) that chemistry can be reduced to physics. I challenge any physicist to dare to predict the outcome of any reaction I might try in my research (organic chemistry methodology work) - or even to explain adequately the outcome of some reactions I've already done. Trying to argue that organic chemistry is a subset of physics is like saying psychology is a subset of chemistry - in terms of abstract principle it may be true, but there is no predictive capability, nor any foreseeable possibility for it to be so. That's why I use the laws of chemistry, and the laws of physics are largely irrelevant in my work (except perhaps for pV=nRT). Until we have physics laws predicting real chemical outcomes, defining chemistry as a subset of physics in the opening paragraph is irrelevant and unhelpful. Walkerma 03:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

These questions are hotly debated by philosophers of science, and it is not our position to decide. The discussion is too big to include in this article, or certainly for the introduction! Starting the article about chemistry with this philosophical debate is akin IMO to starting the article on childbirth with a debate about abortion--a major violation of the WP:NPOV/undue weight policy. :-) However, I think that a well-researched and referenced article about this topic would be more than welcome. I'm not going to start it because I don't know that much about the topic. But from what I've read, I think that Walkerma's position is widely held: although chemistry (and everything else) is "based" on the laws of physics (perhaps in the sense that it can't violate them), it has its own laws and operates at a different level of complexity. I think one of the terms used when talking about this is emergence. --Itub 06:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)