The Chemportal

To what extent do modern scientists embrace abstract theoretical work?  Some of us seem to be enthusiastic about it, but most of us stay away from theories as much as possible.   Van't Hoff, the first Noble winner in Chemistry, was ridiculed for emphasizing a 3D tetrahedral structure for some molecules .... disrespect for abstract theories is still commonplace, it is after all, a bit cartoonish and even ridiculous to propose such an animation as concretely relevant to macroscopic phenomena that is more real to all of us.  Such as in the observation that a metal emits what appears to be an orangy-glow when heated to high temperatures.  A practical explanation has not sufficed for the latter, but that of the deepest abstraction in science, quantum theory.

Most of us still stay away from theory, and there is not really much of a choice anymore since these strange explanations seem to explain reality better then what may simply sound better to us.  There is time-space, instead of an absolute time for instance.  Students still score badly in ACS standardized test as well as the GRE Chemistry Subtest and by "badly" I am referring to the fact that most students in Chemistry don't have an appreciation for all of the theories that they are exposed to throughout there undergraduate sessions and most of us don't personally explore theories to an adequate extent which collectively results in national averages of below 40 % in raw scores on Chemistry subtests of any kind (From my recollection, this was the case for the ACS standardized test for Quantitative Analysis).

There's no denying that theories separate how much we can manipulate reality as we know it, and employ them towards prosocial advantages.  What puzzles me however, and even gets me a bit angry at times, is that most scientists themselves devalue them and condenscend to them.  Not many professors remember their general chemistry, relatively more physical chemistry professors are more adept in remembering them however.  I've rarely witnessed enthusiasm about theory, they are considered dispensible to most people and even scientists themselves are just predisposed to laugh at them if they should ever be proven erroneous. 

So who exactly is advocating abstract theory?  Where are the people that are the real backbone of the scientific community while the rest of us seem to be inept at understanding just how important these strange theories are in upholding the scientific community?  The distinction between Van't Hoff and some of those that ridiculed him (including one of the most prominent scientist of his day, to be revealed later on after I find the actual quotation and the source) seems to be that it takes personality and great intelligence to become a prominent theorist.  Not many people would have sacrificed respect to suggest a "3-D cardboard model" and support the excitement that came with it unless he/she was genuinely convinced that it was true.  It's almost a childish endeavor to propose abstract theories, whether they are significant or not; part of this has to do with the fact that some of the most significant theories are "way out there" meaning that there may not be much incentive and an urgent need to implement them at the moment.

*edited on 04/22/07 for grammar

I've been realizing, increasingly so, that there are few opportunities for an entry level chemist to develop himself in Georgia.  Almost all of my offers for a solid chemist position, doing solid chemical investigations, have arisen from job offers by companies which are out of state.  A few months ago, I phone interviewed with Barr chemical labs for a QC Chemist position in Virginia.  Just recently, I was notified by my professor about a "New Chemist" position from Pegasus Laboratories in Florida, who were seeking new graduates by contacting professors at Universities apparently.  I'm currently endeavoring as a basic chemist, however, there is no research on my part involved.  So I may need to relocate, however, I'm currently earning a good stable income and paying off my loans, and getting really familiar with Georgia.

By the way, my sympathies to all of the people at Virginia Tech.  This event is truly bizarre.

During the period that one of my last courses, biochemistry, was in session, I remember an occasion where I had stopped by the professor's office to point out an error in the grading of a test.  He was friendly, in a very excitable mood, and had raised my grade by an extra 10 percent in addition to the percentage that would have been added even if the grade change was incorporated.  He then proceeded to ask me about how the course was and then promptly moved on to the next subject which seemed to preoccupy him with great excitement....the future of biochem. 

He asked me what I envisioned to be be the future area which biochemistry would be sure to encompass; the current accomplishments of biochemistry consists of all aspects of human physiology, in essence, he had explained that biochemistry had already mastered this area for several decades now and that future textbooks are going to cover all areas of.......the human psychology.  And it's going to be comprehensive and masterful in its exactness as contemporary biochemistry texts interpret human physiology.

Maybe he isn't the only biochemist who is so excited about this topic.  Francis Crick had endeavored in this field until his death.

He claimed that wars would always occur, unless the biochemistry of the human psychology would be elucidated fully.

I remember reading Kary Mullis' autobiography and his excerpt regarding his personal endeavor in getting an article published in Nature.  Kary was the Chemist who invented the PCR technique, the article that was published consisted of his musings on time travel from what I remember.......he apparently wrote it while in a drug induced state.  According to his autobiography, Nature was quite embarrassed in publishing the article; notably, they had indicated the author as a physics professor.

So do Chemist's actually prefer Nature or Science?  They both seem to be more biology oriented, not much pure Chemistry going on besides what may be more closely ascribed as molecular biology.  Both of them cost a fortune by the way, I just paid over ten dollars for latest copy of Nature.

A full understanding of the concept of Enthalpy must be derived from the origins of its conception as well as the facile appreciation of its entire mathematical basis.  Further investigation of Enthalpy, apart from the Atkins source (and not having read Gibb's original manuscripts on the topic), at Wikipedia (Enthalpy) seems to suggest that a change in Enthalpy describe the essential state of the current system relative to a state of "near-nothingness".

"In terms of thermodynamics, enthalpy can be calculated by determining the requirements for creating a system from "nothingness"; the mechanical work required, PV differs, based upon the constance of conditions present at the creation of the thermodynamic system."

The terms exothermic and endothermic are only pertinent to constant p situations, or is it? That is, are such terms soley applicable to the heat in such situations, or are they more important towards the concept of Enthalpy.

Even more interesting statements about the mysterious Enthalpy.......

"Although enthalpy is commonly used in engineering and science, it is impossible to measure directly, as enthalpy has no datum (reference point). Therefore enthalpy can only accurately be used in a closed system. However, few real world applications exist in closed isolation, and it is for this reason that two or more closed systems cannot be compared using enthalpy as a basis, although sometimes this is done erroneously."

Rummaging through some old favorites, I found some some sites that I had employed during my undergraduate years which were....interesting. Here are two....

Tanabe-Sugano diagrams via Java applets

An interactive program for assignments that require investigations into Tanabe-Sugano diagrams.

Chemlab at Dartmouth

This site actually includes tutorials on the techniques that are employed with various labware and instrumentation e.g. digital spectrometer and volumetric flasks!