Talk:Force field (chemistry)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Second-generation forcefields
Can anyone explain what is the difference between the "first" and the "second"-generation force fields? In my opinion, there are no fundamental differences.Biophys 17:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Empirical scoring functions
There are numerous "statistical" and other empirical scoring functions that are applied for ligand docking, modeling of protein folding, or protein design. An example of those are functions implemented in Rosetta@home. These functions are usually treated as something different from force fields in chemistry. But I am not so sure. They also often implement 6-12 potentials and represent potential energy in a certain approximation (but all force fields are approximate). Still, such functions probably need a separate Wikipedia article. Any opinions?Biophys 17:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Forcefield or force field?
This is usually "force field", for example in the Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry.Biophys 19:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deficiencies
I wrote new version of Deficiencies section. Feel free to edit minor things. If there are significant questions or disagreements, please let me know here. This is a complicated question that may need a serious discussion. I wrote this based on my protein modeling experience. Biophys 02:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC) I remember a theoreticain saying that force fields in Chemistry are as rigorous as Schrödinger equation because they are based on Laws of Physics (at a seminar). He was corrected by one of his colleagues who happend to be an experimentalist. Biophys 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

