This is an archive of past discussions about Chemistry. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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 Carnot12:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
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).
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)
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 King14:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
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?
LukeSurl23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's an interesting version of the periodic table:
Isn't the periodic table itself as a symbolic representation in the public domain? Is the problem that certain representations might be copyrighted? Earendilmm18:11, 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. LukeSurl11:13, 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?
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 V8rik20:09, 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. --Itub07:41, 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. LukeSurltc12:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"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. 82.241.221.2414:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
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. LukeSurl11:11, 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 BeetstraTC11:18, 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. V8rik21:25, 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.--Sefringle07:09, 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. --Bduke07:29, 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 V8rik21:51, 13 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. V8rik21:46, 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. Iridium7723:35, 18 February 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. V8rik21:59, 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.--Sefringle05:09, 25 March 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). DMacks17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"==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. --Bfesser23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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. --Itub16:35, 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. --Bduke22:19, 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)
Let's stop being eurocentric and add more than one line about chemistry in the Arab world
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)
"Chemistry" has a Psychological definition which was totally omitted
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? Johnny192600:56, 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). --Itub07:40, 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. --PedroDaGr801:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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. DMacks02:50, 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. Walkerma03:16, 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. --Itub07:36, 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". DMacks20:29, 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.
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. Vsmith00:12, 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. :-)
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. --Bduke02:44, 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.
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. --Itub08:45, 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)
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". --Itub08:29, 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 stone22:43, 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. --Itub07:06, 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... --Itub07:15, 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 stone18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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 stone23:08, 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. --Bduke23:55, 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. Walkerma03:36, 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. --Itub06:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Created "Central science"
I have create a page called "central science". I think that some of the recent discussions on this page would be appropriate for this new page. The relationship between chemistry and physics as well as the relationship between chemistry and biology are both included by this term. M stone23:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Some nice material but I think it should be merged into Chemistry as a section. The title is very POV - OK, our POV as chemists, but still POV. We call our subject the central science. I do not see others doing so. --Bduke00:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agre with Bduke that this is better as a section of the chemistry article (although we can work on the central science article until some admin decides to deprotect the chemistry article). I must also say that the first two references you used, although they are very interesting and are potentially useful for this discussion, in no way support the sentence to which they are attached ("Chemistry is often called the central science because..."). The use the words "central science" once or twice, but they never explain why; they assume that the reader already knows that chemistry is called this way. If I may say so, I think the two references I added to the Chemistry article are much more relevant to this statement (if you want to check them out and don't have the books, you can view parts of one in google books and the other with amazon.com "look inside" feature [user account probably required...]). Of the two references you give, the first one would be more useful for a discussion of the role of chemistry in American society during the 20th century and possible role in the future, and the second is more relevant to the question of chemistry as a service science that we've been discussing above (called "back-office technical activity" in the title). --Itub08:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to pipe in and express my support for the level-headed responsible editors such as Itub, Bduke et al. Regarding my take on this I would suggest that the fact that some physicists seem to think of chemistry as a subset of physics and that some chemists are afraid that they are becoming biologists or material scientists combined with the fact that these same extreme physicists don't claim biology to be a subset of physics since it is too much of a stretch is precisely the reasons why chemistry is commonly called the central science. I would note to the anon's that central does not mean superior just as they claim (with a little less validity) that being a subset is not inferior. Clearly both chemistry and physics are subsets of science. From a philosophical point of view, yes ideally if science could produce a single equation that could predict everything at every moment for all of eternity we would only need that equation but rather than having one science we would actually have none. It would be the end of science because science is a process of discovery. The tools and subdivisions of science will evolve and the more contributions that physics can make to chemistry the better but at this point it is really fairly limited in any predictive power and prediction and hypothesis testing are the core of all science.--Nick Y.21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This whole discussion is sort of moot isn't it? The goal of this portal is to provide the reader with a basic understanding of what chemistry is and what the people do whom busy themselves with it. Chemistry is everywhere, of course it is, but so is physics (and biochemistry etc.). So what's the point. There is no such thing as "in the middle", between biology and physics. If anything, all these disciplines are approaching each other rahter quickly. I know this, I'm a bio physical chemist myself Sikkema21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That article is basically pointless. The term is nothing more than a spin-off of Brown, LeMay, and Bursten’s popular textbook Chemistry – the Central Science, 1977 = 1st Ed, 2005 = 10th Ed.. Moreover, according to Feynman, “the theory behind chemistry is quantum electrodynamics”. Hence, one would be better to argue that QED is the central science. Moreover, once all the fundamental forces get unified, if ever, the new GUT will be the central science. I’m putting merge tags on these articles. --Sadi Carnot06:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "central" in this context. It doesn't mean "most fundamental", but something like "in the middle" (the most common example is "between physics and biology"). I suspect that the phrase predates Brown's book by decades, but I haven't found solid proof yet. :) --Itub08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Itub. The term is widely used in Australia where Brown et al's textbook is not particularly well known. It means that a whole lot of students have to learn chemistry to pursue their own discipline. It is is in the middle with relevance to many other disciplines. --Bduke13:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bduke, at Eastern Kentucky University even the firefighters have to take chemistry(the school has a top ranked law enforcement/forensic science/firefighting departments)as do the engineers, medical students, etc. --PedroDaGr801:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Sadi Carnot that the term The central science is "basically pointless." References are provided to demonstrate that this term is a commonly used. A view that is supported by this discussion. Also it a term used to describe chemistry, which is not the same as being chemistry. Thus I do not believe The central science should not be merged and have removed merge tags. M stone05:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've readded the tags, as there is certainly no consensus that the article should not be merged. There are at least three people here who think the article should be merged. In case it's not clear, I'm one of them. I disagree with Sadi Carnot's view of the term, but I don't think it warrants a separate article. It's just a way of calling chemistry, a nickname if you will, and it can be addressed well enough in a section of the chemistry article. Would you create articles called "the science of life", "the science of the mind", "the only science", etc. just because other sciences are called those ways? --Itub07:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What's the harm in having the page? Wikipedia is not running out of space! Obviously it the term has been discuss in writing. If a term is commonly used and discussed in writing then why shouldn't it have its own page? Chemistry is too big to discuss all aspecs in detail. Having its own page does not exclude its discussion here. Plus this term is also relevant to the philosophy of chemistry. M stone12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
(unindenting) Not doing any harm is not a reason for keeping an article. The main problem is that the article as it exists doesn't really add anything that is not already in the Chemistry article, and is therefore redundant. If it were so much more detailed that it couldn't fit as a section of the chemistry article, and if it had proper references (see the comment I made above on May 7), I might be more inclined to keep it as a separate article. --Itub12:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You raise a valid point that at this point The central science page is not adding much additional information. However, I think that you should you also consider that the article is 2 weeks old! Also I would add refs but I do not have access to those texts. It would be good if you could. I propose removing the merge tags and reevaluating the article in 6 months. If it has not grow into something more distinct then lets merge. M stone20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
That's OK with me, I'm not in a hurry. :) But let's wait a few days to see if there are any other opinions. --Itub08:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have been away from this page for a few days, I may have been hard with my comments, but my point still stands. I don’t think that "The central science" should be an article. It reflects poorly on other articles, in that a reader doesn't really gain anything by it, and weakens our combined work here at Wikipedia as such. In other words, its like writing up an article on the most used adjective of any given article. If we use green chemistry as an example, according to Mstone’s logic, we could then find a reference for the The green science and then write up a stub for why chemistry is The green science. Then we could do this for the other branches of chemistry, e.g. The bio science to discuss biochemistry, etc. Then we could start up a Category:Most common adjectives used to describe the science of chemistry, or something similar. I hope this clarifies my point. Again, what is the point of this article. Is a student actually going to reference this article for a term paper? Note also that Mstone cares so much for this article that he doesn't even take the time to spell check a basic redlink: themodynamics? --Sadi Carnot15:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Not only is it slightly arrogant, it is simply not true. The term central science should be abolished asap; it is not at all descriptive of mainstream thinking. See my remarks above. Sikkema21:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to fight for abolishing terms that are in common usage in the real world. Whether you think it is True is irrelevant; what matters is that we can verify that the term is used. See Wikipedia's verifiablity policy for details. --Itub06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the case with "the central science" is special. The term is very widely used, and this issue of "centrality" has been a matter of serious discussion among chemists and philosophers, as some of the references provided have shown. If Balaban and Klein (ref. below) decided to write a scientific article about it, it does not seem to me at all implausible that a student might want to write a term paper about it too. The topic is notable enough, and it is possible to write an article about it, although it requires quite a bit of research. My only objection was the length redundancy of the actual incarnation of the article, but I'm willing to give it time. --Itub15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting article about chemistry as the central science
I just found a very interesting article on this topic (but it requires subscription). Alexandru T. Balaban and Douglas J. Klein. Is chemistry 'The Central Science'? How are different sciences related? Co-citations, reductionism, emergence, and posets. Scientometrics2006, 69, 615-637. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0173-2 --Itub14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Beyond this, I have seen others referred to also as the “father of chemistry”. Possibly we could do an article on this to clarify who the actual father is? Anybody have ideas or like this proposal? Personally, I would likely argue that Lavoisier is the father, and that other’s are subsidiary, but near-to-equal in importance. --Sadi Carnot15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I know of a lot more men (!) that merit inclusion: Mendeleyev, van 't Hoff, Fisher, Galvani, Berzelius, Avogadro, Lomonosov and Priestley.... It is therefore very dangerous to call someone "father". I would be in favor of deleting the whole sentence. As is the case with a lot of things, it gives the impression that, out of the blue, chemistry was born. This is of course absurd. Geber is a name I've never come across. Sikkema21:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Who the father is is a mater of opinion, of course. However, I think it is true that Lavoisier is the one most commonly named as the father of modern chemistry, although Boyle and Dalton are also often named. However, it makes absolutely no sense to list Geber as a father of modern chemistry, so I have reverted the introduction to an earlier version where he is listed as the father of chemistry (not modern chemistry). I like the idea of an article about the father(s) of chemistry. --Itub15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as the intro to the chemistry article that could go, but in a stand alone piece, if we use published views of what chemistry historians think about the matter, Geber would merit inclusion. Also, there is some Arabic chemist (in Wikipedia somewhere) that I’ve read referred to as the “father of chemistry”. Also, to give a loose idea, Google search results for father of chemistry lists Boyle, Geber, Dalton, and Lavoisier, in that order. There’s also this talk-page/question-answer link: Who is known as the "Father of Chemistry"?, where a user says “it seems there are many fathers of chemistry. Things like this might justify the need for a short article on this topic. Just some loose ideas. --Sadi Carnot15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Geber merits inclusion, but he is not the father of modern chemistry any more than Archimedes is the father of modern mathematics, Aristotle the father of modern physics, or Hippocrates the father of modern medicine. :) --Itub15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
24.36.181.171 07:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)I think that putting Geber as the father of chemistry is a been misleading, since one cannot find any credible sources making this claim. Most ency. and books on science consider geber to be an alchamist.24.36.181.17107:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Chemical energetics external link
The link to the article through the External links is non functional, most likely bacause of the / after the url. I tried to repair it but cannot because it is protected. Can someone who has the rights do it?202.141.141.713:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Atom's Image
As you should know, electrons do not orbit around the nuclei, that's and old atomic model, electrons move in a miscellaneous way...
We should find another atom's image or find another chemistry's symbol. A laboratory full of flasks, an erlenmeyer with a green liquid inside (yeah, that's something very cartoonish, but it's really a symbol), a molecule, etc
--24.232.126.3018:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I second the preceding comment. The first thing I thought when I got to the Chemistry page was "wow that image is just an atom, that would better fit the Atom article." Does anybody have an idea for an image or diagram that would better symbolize Chemistry?76.24.39.4706:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Chemical energetics & chemical energy
OK, Hallenrm has added a whole lot here, Sadi Carnot has moved it to chemical thermodynamics and Hallenrm has reverted, all with neither of you discussing these major changes on this talk page. Let us not have a revert war. Please leave it as it is and discuss the reasons for the changes you both want. My own thoughts start with the fact that these two sections are now quite a bit longer than any other section on a part of chemistry. Only more general sections are larger. They should be shorter. I am therefore inclined towards Sadi's solution of moving a great deal to chemical thermodynamics, but I would leave rather more than he did in the two existing sections. Can we have some general input here on this? --Bduke05:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This article should be written summary-style, with the more specialized content moved to more specific articles. I agree with Sadi Carnot's edit, but it is certainly possible to leave a slightly longer summary. --Itub08:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I indeed sensed that! That is the reason I have already trimmed the section that can be easily moved to the Chemical thermodynamics page. I also intend to trim the subsection here a bit further.Hallenrm13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hallenrm, you have reverted me three times now. The idea at Wikipedia is to work together. In any standard chemistry textbook, the energy sections are listed in the chemical thermodynamics chapter. The chemistry article is pushing 50 kb; the goal is to keep all articles at about 32 kb, the tension-span length of the average internet reader. I was attempting to reorganize the material you added in this direction. Now that you have reverted this, please go back and fix the changes you made, i.e. write a one to two paragraph summary (similar in size to the other chemistry article headers: “chemical bond”, “chemical reaction”, etc. (see: Wikipedia:Summary style), and move the rest of the energy material to other specific articles: spectroscopy, activation energy, bond energy, thermochemistry, chemical thermodynamics, free energy, etc. Thank you for your cooperation. --Sadi Carnot21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed heartening to know that you are aware of the 32 kB limit, I hope you also remember that I peorganized the Energy article just to that end, but you and your friends opposed it vehemently. you offered to write it afresh but disappeared from the scene after a straw poll. So far as I can see, your only intention is to interfere in my edits so that you do not face any competetion from me. Any way, as you can very well see from the above comments from Bduke your actions were hardly appropriate, I have already started pruning the energy section, and please at least remember how to count, I have not reverted you three times on this article, only once! Hallenrm03:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Quantum Chemistry
The section on quantum chemistry was very conspicous by its presence in the article, since other sub-disciplines of Chemistry cannot be accorded similar treatment (because then the article would become unduly long) I have merged it with rhe main article on quantum chemistry. If any editor has any objection to this edit, s/he is welcome to undo it.Vig vimarsh03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. The lead in Quantum chemistry may need a bit of effort, but I'm too busy to look at it now. I see there has been a small tweak since you added it. --Bduke03:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I endorse your actions. I was thinking about bringing this up myself it was so glaring of an issue.--Nick Y.18:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you tell what is quantum chemistry? I never heard of before..) User:panicpack121
The application of quantum theory to chemistry. It is both a sub set of theoretical chemistry, which covers a range of theory including quantum theory and statistical mechanics, and of computational chemistry, which also includes molecular dynamics. The programs GAUSSIAN and GAMESS for example, do computational quantum chemistry. --Bduke(Discussion)23:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Fathers(?) of Chemistry
Some editors have been lately insisting on using the term "three fathers of Chemistry". The term appears inappropriate to me, first of all the term father has its genesis in life sciences, where by definition there cannot be three fathers. Secondly, it sounds very male chauvennestic, because after all it is the mother who bears the pains of giving birth, not the father. The three esteemed scientist suffered those pains, so they should be called three 'mothers'. I donot know why the author of the book reffered to chose to call them the three fathers, but whatever be his reasons, fatherhood or motherhood of chemistry is not a fact in science and hence the usage of the term in the article can hardly be justified by just citing a reference.Vig vimarsh07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I entirely agree. It should be removed. I removed it earlier and thought I had a consensus wording, but it keeps getting put back. Would those who want to include, please tell us why. --Bduke08:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
While I don't object with calling them "founders" instead, I disagree strongly Vig's argument. It just sounds like politically correct balderdash. The phrase "father of [a science]" has been in very wide use for centuries, and saying that they should be called "mothers" doesn't make any sense. I'm sure if they were women people might call them mothers, but the fact is that science was almost exclusively dominated by men at the time modern chemistry was "born". --Itub10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
While it may be debatable, whrther my arguments above "just sounds like politically correct balderdash" the fact remains that the term three fathers can hardly be justified on scientific grounds, and should have no place in an serious article about a science. I therefore agree with Bduke that it should be removed now, and in future too.Vig vimarsh13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"Three fathers" is a metaphor; it does not have to be literally true. The term is justified based on usage and citations from the literature, not a pseudo-biological argument. --Itub
While I reject Vig's argument that they should be called mothers as original research and support Itub in saying that it is metaphorical and properly cited, I would be inclined from a editorial perspective to use the term "founders". Although "fathers" has some historical precedent I do not see it being overwhelming and I see no reason to reject a generic term on the basis of precedent that someone else used a more metaphorical term. "Mothers" can not be justified without some precedent, fathers is reasonable based on precedent but I place my editorial opinion in the "founders" column.--Nick Y.16:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It was never my intention to argue that they should be called mothers. I only wanted to highlight that "three fathers" is an inappropriate term, which no serious editor would like.Vig vimarsh18:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it more then fair to list Lavoisier as the Father of modern chemistry. I mean any article or book that is written about Lavoisier states that he is the father of modern chemistry. The same is not true for Boyle and Dalton but it is still mentioned. I think is is also worth mentioning that Geber is often refered to as an alchemist instead of a chemist. Therefore the label of father of chemistry that is given to him needs to be reviewd. I have not read a single book that calls him the father of chemistry. Only online websites about islam list him as the father of chemistry, and i doubt these websites are credible sources.24.36.181.17107:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the comment just above from higher up as this is where the latest discussion is taking place. I also cleaned up headers where you accidentally introduced errors. There is also no need to sign at hte beginning of your comment as well as the end, so I have removed the one at the beginning. My comment is that the discussion is not whether Lavoisier was the father or founder of modern chemistry. His role was massive. The question is what term to use. The consensus above is to use "founder" not "father". You do not seem to making a case to replace "founder" with "father". You may be right about Geber, but my last edit only says that "some would also include" him with the others. I think that satisfies out "neutral point of view" policy. Bduke.
Again, although the point of Lavoisier being referred to many times as the "father of chemistry" is a valid one and should definitely make it into the Lavoisier article, we need not avoid generic terms. In this case, as is pointed out, we are also referring to others that don't have this metaphorical title as strongly attached. In referring to all three I think the generic is most appropriate. Yes, "three fathers" is not unprecedented but not strongly and we have reached consensus to use the generic term, which would be reasonable even if the precedent was strong since it is generic.--Nick Y.17:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Lavoisier did not originate the phrase Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu ("Nothing is in the understanding that was not earlier in the senses"). The phrase itself is found in Descartes, and the idea was stated by Aristotle. Jhobson1 (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Chemistry
Chemistry cannot be reduced to the interactions between electric charge among atoms. The solution to the Schrodinger Equation for a given protein for example still an elusive achievement. Furthermore, there is no known way yet to predict (from purely theoretical principles only) the reaction rates for a given particular chemical transformation beetween two species, no matter if we can predict the products that form. The past intent to consider chemical interactions as simple charge interaction among atoms or sub-atomic particles with classical physics methods failed (e.g. the atomic models of Bohr and Rutherford). Quantum Mechanics becomes prohibitively complex as more electrons are involved in atomic interactions, and this doesn't include further complexity as with bonding. Because of basic instrumentation needs and the Uncertainty principle, electrical charge interactions are primarily determined in chemical phenomena only after the basic materials of the assembled instrumentation are properly applied. This cannot be deduce merely from charges since those charges are determined based on element and compound information and the periodic table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.122.69 (talk)
I'm not sure how to find the author of the preceding comment, but it would be more helpful if you suggested possible revisions or improvements. wingman35821:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a false argument. That one cannot solve a protein from first principles within a reasonable computational time is not a valid argument against electronic interactions being the 'stuff' of chemistry. Given infinite computational time, a solution (or set of solutions) could be found, and the rest as they say is a question of funding/engineering. While the properties of individual atoms can not and should not be dismissed from consideration of 'chemical transformations', atoms are ultimately the scaffolding upon which 'chemistry' occurs through the 'motion' of electrons. In some cases, such as with Hg+ and its relativistic effects, the scaffolding introduces some (severe) quirks to the behavior of the electrons, but in most cases the scaffolding can be given much less attention. Sorry that was longer than I intended. Also, the Born-Oppenheimer approx is valid so lets move on with our lives and leave nitty gritty atomic stuff to physic people and their toys.Dbuschho (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make the simplistic point that in the beginning of studies about matter, the subject matter of chemistry was about what things are or were as could be determined from experiment and observation and deductive logic. Thus the ideas of Lucretious. The science of Physics was then about what things did, and mathematics was about the relative size of things. Nowadays the era of specialization has set in and the details of each scientific area have expanded to the point that it is confusing and hard to keep up with all the new and sometimes conflicting ideas in any of these 3 subject matters. WFPM (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)PS I am in here trying to find out if there is a chemist that knows anything about an electrochemical experiment that results in the generation of a gas called "Irish current" as discussed in my talk page. WFPMWFPM (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Antoine Lavoisier
I am getting a feeling that the user 24.36.181.171 is rather obsessed with Lavoisier, all his/her edits are centered around the contributions of Lavoisier and nothing else. If s/he continued like this very soon the articles will be swamped by info on lavoisier. Definetly the Chemistry article is not the place where all the achievements and contributions need be. I therefore am deleting his recent additions, please discuss Vig vimarsh08:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
In looking at the recent history it does not seem that 24.36.181.171 is obsessed with Lavoisier as much as you make it sound. S/he has made several edits unrelated to Lavoisier that are genuine improvements. The Lavoisier contributions are generally pretty far up there in terms of importance and are reasonable although perhaps as an editorial choice may not be consensus or fit within the space limitations. I would encourage 24.36.181.171 to engage in a discussion here and perhaps register. Vig - I don't think your questions and actions are misplaced but I think that there is no real problem brewing. S/he just needs to engage and is likely very reasonable and un-obsessed.--Nick Y.20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that Antoine is directly called the "father of modern chemistry", while on the page that those words are linked to, there are actually four people listed under that category? Seems a little "obsessed" to me. This whole page seems very Lavoisiercentric. Sbrools(talk . contribs)13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
First Paragraph
Ok, I attempted to rewrite the first paragraph, as it really didn't sound good and was factually unsound, but I'm having trouble. I put in a definition based on a dictionary definition, but the second part sounds weird. I think that the opening is too focused on "the founders of chemistry", when it should be just more of an overview of what it is. Something about it just doesn't strike me right. I was thinking maybe we could take a leaf out of the physics page. Sbrools(talk . contribs)01:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I think your efforts are in the right direction, it seems to me that the open paragraph was much better a few months ago. If I remember correctly we reached a very nice consensus on the talk pages etc. SInce that time it drifted into being quite bad and you have righted the ship only partially. Here is my 24 July 2006 opening paragraph (short and sweet):
"Chemistry (derived from alchemy) is the science of matter at the atomic scale. Such matter includes atoms and collections of atoms (such as molecules, crystals, and metals) that constitute materials encountered in everyday life. Chemistry deals with the composition and statistical properties of such structures, as well as their transformations and interactions. According to modern chemistry, the physical properties of materials are generally determined by their structure at the atomic scale. Chemistry is, along with physics, one of the most fundamental natural sciences."
I see some areas of improvement in the current version especially in the first paragraph. I would advocate for cutting everything after the first paragraph as irrelevant to the opening of this article (maybe history of chemistry it would be a keeper) which should define the subject and as inconsistent and subjective (Physical chemistry is not delineated by type of material and analytical chemistry and nuclear chemistry are clearly required to complete the spectrum of super-subdisciplines but ...) but my point is such poiints should be dealt with below. Perhaps a note about that it is divided into subdiciplines with a link to below and that it has a long history and is related to alchemy with a link to the history section is apropos. If I have time I'll be bold and make the changes without objection.--Nick Y.19:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, something about your definition strikes me as...off. I don't know. It seems to me that it's too specific. I guess it's my interpretation of the words "atomic scale". Because when I hear that, I think "size of an atom", and much of chemistry deals with things significantly larger. While every substance or chemical reaction does boil down to electron interactions and such, something tells me that chemists study the larger picture too. Webster's dictionary defines it as "a science that deals with the composition, structure, and properties of substances and of the transformations that they undergo ", which I think is the best definition I've seen. As for the whole alchemy/history thing, I don't really think it belongs in the opening. Maybe just one sentence in passing, but it doesn't deserve a list of notable people in the opening paragraph. We can stick all that in the History section. And I should also note that Modern Chemistry did not evolve directly from Alchemy, it was a blending of the Middle Ages' form of Alchemy and the Greek's "Natural Philosophy". Sbrools(talk . contribs)13:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the current first paragraph is very nice. Although I might have some minor suggestions and input etc. for the first paragraph my main point was to hack off everything after it, which is flawed and out of place.--Nick Y.17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Picture
I'm not fond of the picture used to illustrate the article. First, it's just an atom, it'd be better on the atom page. Second, electrons don't "orbit" as they do in the picture. I think it's kinda misleading. I know exactly what picture I'd like for this page, but I can't seem to find it. Something along the lines of http://www.flickr.com/photos/skycaptaintwo/664439091/] or the like, some sort of close-up on a couple of flasks or something along the same lines. Thanks! Sbrools(talk . contribs)01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but while I tried to view the picture, you have provided the link for, I was unsuccessful, rather I was led to the Google homepage. I would suggest that you post a more appropriate and interesting image that can survive. Thanks! Hallenrm07:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's weird, because when I click on it, it takes me to the page I intended, and it's not just my computer's cache. And I wasn't intending to use that picture, I'm not even sure it's under an appropriate licence, it was just the thing that came closest to the picture for which I'm looking. Plus, I think that picture is very interesting, much more interesting than the false depiction of an atom. Sbrools(talk . contribs)21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how a picture of a few pieces of glassware can be more interesting or relevant to chemistry than the atom, which is arguably the most central concept in chemistry. However, the point remains that the current picture is a cartoon, and that it is difficult to have a picture of an atom that is realistic and illustrative at the same time. Someone suggested long ago using a picture of the periodic table. I think that would be much better, because the periodic table is characteristic of chemistry and is actually used by real chemists (unlike a cartoon of the atom). Another option would be a picture of a molecule, which again wouldn't be realistic but at least would be a picture that is used in the real world. Finally, yet another option would be to do the same as the physics article--forget about trying to find something that illustrates the entire science, but just something that looks cool (a levitating superconductor in the case of the physics article; we could use a dramatic reaction such as the thermite). --Itub11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea, How about a drawing of a tree. The trunk would represent the general chemistry, and its branches the various subdisciplines. Perhaps, they can tagged in the drawing.Vig vimarsh07:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
While I see your point, and that does illustrate chemistry, I don't really think it's suitable for the article. It's the same problem as the atom picture, it doesn't really have anything to do with chemistry, it just illustrates it. In other words, the article isn't about cartoon trees. On the other hand, it is a nice drawing of a tree. Maybe we can find some other use for it? In the meantime, I'm So far, I'm liking the periodic table or the just 'artsy' picture the best. Although, we could use a picture of a molecule, as 3d representations are used by chemists on a regular basis. Sbrools(talk . contribs)17:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing personal (really!) but the first on the page, that chemistry tree, looks like something a bored student would draw during a lecture. Surely there are amazing pictures of crystals, flames, flasks, molecules, exploding hydrogen balloons, etc. that would be better to begin the article. Again, nothing personal, just a non-contributor's observation. 24.92.183.8304:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The helix of DNA, or perhaps a protein, may be the only molecular structure most people recognize as having something to do with science. How about a nice image of a DNA segment, perhaps from molecular mechanics (etc.) software, to open the article? -- Astrochemist11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Chemistry studies how the structure of materials at the atomic level (bottom) relates with their observable macroscopic properties (top). The figure shows diamond and graphite, two very different substances; both formed of carbon atoms but with a different structure.Most chemistry textbooks seem to have pictures of molecules on the cover, sometimes combined with pictures of materials or reactions. DNA is an option, but has the disadvantage that it is often more closely associated with biology. Perhaps we could do something like the allotrope picture of the right (the picture could perhaps be beautified, and the exact example replaced with something more "dynamic" that also depicts the idea of chemical reactions). --Itub15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I was browsing today and came across something akin to what I would like, but unfortunately, it's copyrighted, but if we could get something similar to this, I think the article would look great. Sbrools(talk . contribs)17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Chemicals in flasksThere is a picture of that sort in the Commons already (Chemicals in flasks, right). But I'm still not convinced that pictures of colorful flasks or tubes are of any use. I'd much rather have something showing molecular structure or a chemical reaction. --Itub11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It may not be ideal, but at least it's better than that tree diagram we had for a while... I've added it for now, and the caption is just the opening sentence of the article, feel free to write a better caption though. Sbrools(talk . contribs)03:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The first line of every article should be as accurate and complete a definition as possible. The following sentences should be explanatory down to every level.--Nick Y.17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
In the Reference section on this page, item 15 reads:
1.^ Dr. K. Ajram (1992), Miracle of Islamic Science, Appendix B, Knowledge House Publishers, ISBN0911119434.
"Humboldt regards the Muslims as the founders of chemistry."
Is it possible that they mean to attribute this statement with "Holmyard" instead of "Humboldt"?
Sorry, I noticed a big problem with the explanation of different fields of chemistry... Organic chemistry is not the study of organic matter, but rather the study of compounds containing carbon and hydrogen. Right? [[7]]
- Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.74.82 (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I think a valuable point is being made here. 'Organic chemistry is the study of organic matter' could be taken to refer to soils, for example. Further, my understanding of organic chemistry is that all organic compinds must contain C, but that not all C containing compounds are organic. For example, CCl4 is organic, but NaCN is not. EdChem (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that organic chemistry is the study of compounds that contain carbon. See, for example, the introduction to this organic chemistry textbook (Basic Principles of Organic Chemistry). We could get more subtle than that, but I don't think that it is appropriate for this article's introduction. Shanata (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There are always some exceptions. The study of calcium carbonate, for example, is not considered to be organic chemistry. Generally we exclude those compounds that fit naturally into inorganic chemistry because of their similarities with other compounds. --Bduke (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess that I still feel that the brief definition given in the introduction of this page ('the study of organic matter') could be improved. Perhaps something similar to what's stated on the organic chemistry page, such as 'the study of compounds consisting primarily of carbon and hydrogen'? Shanata (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Basically, organic chemistry is the study of carbon containing compounds and others related to it (such as: Nitrogen, phosphorus,sulfur, oxygen and halogens.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfangv8 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there some reason for the use of all the colours in the SF of taxol on this page? At first I thought it was supposed to indicate biosynthesis - as taxol is a derivatised terpene, the colours could have been intended to relate to the isoprene rule - but if so, it appears incorrect. EdChem (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense - there is a b&w image at talk:Nicolaou Taxol total synthesis, maybe we should change it for that. (I'd boldly make the change, but haven't tried changing images yet.) I have made the change as the colour is certainly potentially confusing EdChem (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Further reading section
The way the further reading texts are listed appear arbitrary to me. In particular, I note that the Claydon et al book is a fairly advanced organic chemistry text (although it does start at a more elementary level). I would like to suggest perhaps also adding more "general blurb" under "introductory university chemistry textbooks" 68.75.21.131 (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Partly this reflects different countries' systems - in the UK (where students specialize from age 16) books like Clayden and Shriver/Atkins might be used by incoming freshman, but in the US (where students don't specialize until college) they wouldn't use them until their 2nd/3rd years. But there definitely should be more examples of general chemistry. I also notice that someone here (certainly not me!) seems to really like Atkins...! Walkerma (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't edit - change needed
Why can't I edit this article? It says 'view source' at the top instead of 'edit this article'.
The change needed: "Chemistry can be called "the central science"" should be changed to "Chemistry has been called "the central science"". Thanks for giving me permission and all, but "has been called" is more accurate. 12.49.208.69 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Rewording Needed
In the second to the last paragraph of the Energy section, a sentence reads, "Because, the electronic energy levels are not so closely spaced, ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation is not transferred with equal felicity, as is also the case with electrical energy" which is very awkwardly worded at the end and difficult to discern. A rewording and removal of the unnecessary comma after "Because" would be appreciated. Also, there is a disagreement in wording from the previous sentence to this one where "placed" in the preceding sentence is used to mean the same as "spaced" in this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panserbjorne51 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Etymology
I think that someone should add an external link for reference [24]. A good site at [8] provides a free access to the cited article and some of its updates.--Bjemachem (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe Wikipedia is wrong about the ethmology of the word "chemistry". The word chemistry in Latin didn't have anything with ancient egyptians as when this word came to Latin people in Egypt didn't speak ancient Egyption, but they spoke Arabic. In addition, the word Chemistry came to Latin from the word Al-kimiya in Arabic. Moreover, the word Al-kimiya is not originally Arabic as it's adopted from old Persian after 6th century AD when Arabs took scientific terms from Persians.
Arabs took the world Kimia in Persian as Kimia means Gold; Also, scinece of studying elements and turing them into gold was Kimia as well.
In short, the origin of the word "chemistry" is not Egeption; however, it's Persian. Added by nshoara, 11 April, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.247.38 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed you have a different etymology at the beginning of the article and in the eytmology section. I believe the one in the etymology section is correct, with one exception Keme is the word for Egypt in specifically the Coptic language. So could someone make amendments to the first etymology at the beginning of the article.
Kahi is the Coptic word meaning Earth. I think someone put that keme means earth in Egyptian in a previous edit, which is wrong.
Edit: I just checked the Chemistry etymology page; it has correct information. Can anyone with privileges to locked pages, amend the disparities between the two. And, slightly off topic, I think I should stop procrastinating and get back to my A-Level Chemistry revision!
No mention of Greeks and Romans?
No mention of the Greeks and Romans in relation to Chemistry? Im surprised. Weren't they the first to distinguish the relation between acids and bases? Don't we still use this today?
EDIT: It is also significant to point out that many of the early "chemists" in the ancient Muslim and European world, including many of the ones listed here on this article, used theories and practices that are not considered scientific by today's standards. --Jtd00123 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikibook and Wikiversity Chemistry
There is no activity on Wikibooks or WIkiversity with respect to chemistry. Is anyone here active with regard to that or interested in it. It is a mess in both places. Does anyone even use those resources?
--Bgreeson (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
External Link
The following link is to a site with interactive blogs on Harvard undergrad class lectures. This particular one is essentially the main intro class to science classes at Harvard, and covers topics ranging from chemistry to molecular and cellular biology. I found this page extremely helpful when I was taking the class and I think that the posted lecture notes are pretty interesting for anyone remotely interested in the topic.
Anyone can read and contribute to the commentary of the texts on the site. If you read through a lecture or two and agree, I'd encourage someone with more Wikipedia clout than myself to post on the actual chemistry and/or mcb pages. Let me know what you all think. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Bbrasky100 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Bill
Please fix
The last sentence in the 1st paragraph of the history section (Extracting metal from their ores,making pottery and glazes, fermenting beer and wine, making pigments for cosmetics and painting, extracting chemicals from plants for medicine and perfume, making cheese, dying cloth, tanning leather, rendering fat into soap, making glass, and making alloys like bronze.) is not a complete sentence, it needs something like (Extracting metal from their ores,making pottery and glazes, fermenting beer and wine, making pigments for cosmetics and painting, extracting chemicals from plants for medicine and perfume, making cheese, dying cloth, tanning leather, rendering fat into soap, making glass, and making alloys like bronze are all examples of ancient chemistry.) i would do that edit as a temporary fix, but i am not autoconfirmed yet, so i cant edit it --Tjayh913 (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chemistry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, unfortunately this article fails to meet the Good Article criteria. Issues include:
Inline citations go after punctuation marks, per WP:FN.
Remove obvious self-referencing phrasing, such as "system (see subdisciplines)." – when this article is printed out on paper, this information will not be useful.
Far too much information goes unreferenced, especially the "Basic concepts", which takes up about half of the article.
Feel free to resubmit this article for a renomination after it has improved.
"For example, ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation is not transferred with as much felicity."
Would "facility" be more appropriate? ie: ease vs intense joy.
S: (n) felicity, felicitousness (pleasing and appropriate manner or style (especially manner or style of expression))
S: (n) happiness, felicity (state of well-being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.172.216 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the definition of chemistry by Chang, i.e. "Chemistry (1998) – the study of matter and the changes it undergoes (Chang).", is fundamentally different from that of Pauling, i.e. "Chemistry (1947) – the science of substances: their structure, their properties, and the reactions that change them into other substances (Pauling)." In fact, Pauling's definition seems more accurate and specific in representing the main tenets of chemical thought to this day, whereas Chang's definition is more ambiguous (e.g., nuclear fission and fusion are certainly changes in matter, but are physical rather than chemical). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.8.6 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Nuclear chemistry is chemical. Nuclear transmutations are also chemical since they deal with radioactive decay. (Fireyair (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC))
Please edit
Could someone please remove the use of the word pseudoscience in reference to alchemy? In the context this is incorrect: The alchemy from which modern chemistry developed could not have been pseudoscientific, as the modern definition of science had not yet emerged. It's also unnecessarily pejorative (please see Wikipedia's article on pseudoscience). Thank you! I'm unable to edit as the article is semi-protected. Peramelemorphia (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand your point on the chronology of a definition of science versus the early days of alchemy, but given that the subsequent sentence mentions "chemistry, metallurgy, philosophy, astrology, astronomy, mysticism and medicine", we can't really call them all science. At any rate, the alchemy page doesn't generally seem to describe alchemy as a pseudoscience, so for now I'll just replace it with a more accurate, but ambiguous, phrase that some one else can clarify, as appropriate. Shanata (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The word كيميا is from Persian language, not Arabic. By keep making this change on Wikipedia you are changing history.
This word is a pure Persian name. The word was commonly used by Persian alchemists (known as Kimiagar, Persian: کیمیاگر) in central Persia; Shiraz, Isfahan, Yazd, Kerman). Addition of 'gar' suffix at the end of this word comes from Persian grammar, meaning 'the person who does alchemy', not from Arabic grammar.
But the modern western society considers alchemy as a science-fictional sub-group of chemistry that deals with magic, witches and wizards. However in ancient Persia alchemists were those who tried to produce gold from copper, iron and bronze. Although they never succeeded, perhaps they were the first chemists who developed methods of combining different elements to make the first human made chemicals.
So the word chemistry is originated from those era and then introduced to Europeans by Arabs who had conquered the whole Persia, and also southern and eastern Europe. Perhaps Europeans thought that anything that came from the middle-east was Arabic.
Arabic letters have also been originated from Persia but as long as the current modern western society confuses Arabic with Persian letters, and also cannot distinguish the Persian history with Arabic history, we are creating this wrong information on Wikipedia.
In addition, in Arabic alphabets the letter 'G' does not exist and Arabs are not able to pronounce it, representing another evidence that this name is uniquely Persian. Arabic alphabet has four letters less than Persian alphabet; G, Zh, Ch and P.
Please visit the Persian Language version of this article and ask somebody to translate it for you if you don't understand it, and also read the references. It is like you are saying because Chinese and Japanese letters look the same, all Chinese and Japanese history are also the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.219.41 (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to mention that the Oxford English Dictionary says that the English words alchemy and chemistry come from the Arabic word, which apparently comes from a Greek root. I've not seen any authoritative source that mentions any Persian root for that word or that it comes from کیمیاگر rather than from the Arabic forms mentioned. (See Alchemy#Etymology for some more discussion with links to sources.)
If you have any good source documenting the Persian root of this word, I personally would be very interested (as would many other people).
I agree. Not just the Oxford English Dictionary says that the Arabic (or Persian) word from which we derive "Chemistry" goes ultimately back to a Greek word, but so also the Wikipedia article on the etymology of "chemistry" says the same thing (just follow footnote no. 1 to see this). In fact, all published sources conclude that the origin of the word goes back though the Arabic to either Greek or Egyptian sources, as the Wikipedia article on the etymology of "chemistry" correctly states. If there is a published source for the assertion that "chemistry" derives from a Latinized Arabic word meaning "value", I would also be grateful to be given that citation. But for the meantime, I will now change the first line of this article to be consistent with accepted current scholarship on this question.Ajrocke (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC).
Misuse of sources
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk·contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 6 edits by Jagged 85 in August 2007 and 6 more edits in May 2007. Tobby72 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
GIVE THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROGRESS OF CHEMISTRY IN THE FOLLOWING AREA:
Many textbooks compare the mole to a dozen, and write 1 dozen = 12 and 1 mol = 6.022e23, but the latter is wrong according to the current definition of the mole. I tried to edit the section to make clear that the mole is not a dimensionless constant by adding:
However, whereas dozen is a dimensionless number, mole is not.
This is quite subtle, but 1 dozen = 12, or dozen/12 = 1, so you can multiply anything by dozen/12 and preserve the content. 1 mol does not equal 6.022e23, and you cannot multiply with 6.022e23/mol and preserve the content. For instance,if you multiply the Boltzmann constant k with 6.022e23/mol, you get the universal gas constant R, i.e. you go from atomic quantities to macroscopic quantities.
I also added an explanation why the choice was made to have the mole as a new base unit:
The mole concept is useful to check chemical calculations for consistency, or to deduce relationships of different quantities by dimensional analysis.
When the SI system was set up, there was a choice whether to have amount of substance be a dimensionless quantity, or to give it a base unit. It was decided to do the latter, even though the definition of mole talks about number of entities. This is counter-intuitive for the beginning student, but very useful for the trained chemist. For instance, it is useful that k and R have different dimensions, because k refers to single molecules and R refers to bulk substance. An encyclopedia is not a technical document, it is written for people who sometimes have misconceptions, and it benefits from stating the obvious (i.e. something you could deduce if you know mole is a unit and units have dimensions) by including somewhat redundant information.
These edits were deleted, but I think it is important to be accurate even in this very basic article. If anyone cares to incorporate some version of these suggestions back into the article, I would be grateful. I've posted similar comments on Amount of substance, Avogadro constant and Mole (unit) because there were similar misconceptions or inaccuracies in those articles (fixed at present, but I'll check in a couple of days).Theislikerice (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It's true that the units for mole is "amount of substance", and that's an important technical point. For beginning chemists, that's a technical distinction that doesn't matter for mole calculations--my students already have a hard enough time just converting between moles and grams, and "it's like 'a dozen'" works well to explain it to them. I've tried including the more technical version, where "...of the fundamental pieces" (eggs, atoms, etc.) and they usually wind up more confused. "I have 6.02x10^23 carbon atoms, therefore I have a mole of carbon" is a great illustration that "atoms" (i.e., the "substance" for the specific case) is part of the mole unit. But wait, don't I really have a mole of carbon atoms (some in-principle-countable amount of substance)? Well yes they're atoms, but no, the unit of measurement is now just "mole". That's where making that technical distinction adds confusion instead of allowing one to use units to be clear and avoid mistakes. We need to have our articles correct and accessible and usable.
I probably went overboard in reverting your edits out of frustration at how they made previously simplified explanations that were directly usable into a more technical and muddled/less direct approach. One serious risk here is developing a "walled garden", where moles, amount of substance, intrinsic units, etc. all refer to each other but don't provide a direct entry point for those who don't want or need to know all those technical details. That is, school kids need to be able to jump in and start learning at their level how to understand and do the things they face without having to first learn lots of deeper material. And scientists need the technical information too. That's a tough balancing act! If school textbooks say "A", we can't just jump in and say "no, A is definitely not correct" even though A works fine for the cases the textbook-audience faces. Verifiability policy actually says we almost must say what the textbook says (with refs to them), and then also more detail and explanation (citing Gold Book or whatever) why it's not really right, what a more general or accurate definition is, etc. DMacks (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
What for?
In the Energy section one reads:
"The phase of a substance is invariably determined by its energy and the energy of its surroundings. When the intermolecular forces of a substance are such that the energy of the surroundings is not sufficient to overcome them.."I seems to me that such statement is self-contradictory and obscures the very issue it sets out to clarify.I can only assume that the authors intention was to cover for the actual melting or vaporization process where the concomitant heat exchange between sample and environment must be justified.Why not speak of temperature,simply? Does anybody else feel uncomfortable with this whole paragraph or is it only me?62.1.126.48 (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Did not notice I was not logged in ,sorry.Cleanthis (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I find the entire section difficult to read. I can't imaging how difficult it would be for readers without any background in chemistry. I've tried to extract what the topics of the paragraphs are
thermochemistry
chemical kinetics
chemical equilibrium
energies of bound electrons
intramolecular forces
energy transfer to excite a reactant?
spectroscopy
The order seems arbitrary, and is not explained in any transitions connecting the paragraphs, so it is easy to get lost. Many of the statements are vague on the one hand, and full of jargon on the other. I think it would be better to focus on fewer topics, and be more direct in writing about them. Perhaps easier said than done, but maybe including selected diagrams (energies of bound electrons, energies of ground states (reactant/product) and transition state, an example of an IR spectrum showing the energy vs. bond extension on the low and high energy side of the spectrum) would be a first step. Also, removing any material that is to detailed for the main Chemistry article would also help.Theislikerice (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
U of Cologne image
I very much like Cologne ,its University also,but would it be agreeable to replace the picture (or just the caption )after a while with one from my own favourite University and so forth?Nobody would notice the difference anyway. Cleanthis (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to editors to vote/discuss definition of science in Talk:Science
There has been an extensive discussion on the Talk:Science of what the lead definition of the science article should be. I suspect this might be an issue that may be of interest to the editors of this page. If so, please come to the voting section of the talk science page to vote and express your views. Thank you. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
What are the main themes of Chemistry?
This article has been criticized for its lack of coherence (in past nominations for featured and good article). One reply was that chemistry is a hodge-podge of many subfields, and it is difficult to condense the nature of chemistry in a short article for the general public. To counter this argument, I would like to open a discussion about the underlying themes of chemistry. These major themes should help group the material presented into larger chunks, and help to set chemistry apart from physics, biology and engineering while also showing the connections.
To get the discussion started, here is my choice of five themes, together with a suggestion for the first sentence of the article:
Chemistry is the science of matter and of the changes it undergoes through chemical reactions. Five themes fundamental to chemistry are:
Matter consists of atoms
Chemical bonds between atoms give rise to the >50 million known substances
Chemists use chemical reactions to synthesize new substances with novel properties
Separation techniques allow chemists to purify substances from mixtures to study their properties
The laws of thermodynamics govern in which direction reactions proceed and at which point they reach equilibrium
If we could distill a handful of themes that encompass as much of the field of chemistry as possible, this would bring focus to the article. The Biology article in my opinion succeeds at that and is a good example of what could be done here as well.
Mathematical misadventures... (for the sake of science, EDIT!)
This article asserts that there exists an infinite number of chemical combinations when in fact this can not be substantiated. There exists not even a proof of the infinite amount of prime numbers let alone chemical combinations. Also, this article states that the CAS uses a numerical number to identify a chemical. I'd like to know what non-numerical numbers exist, because, henceforth there were exactly zero of them. We should change this quickly and I'll tell you why. So, that we don't appear foolish.
I suggest that we omitt the word 'infinite' and the word 'numerical' entirely. For those who wish to know specifically where the mistakes exist: Just use the find on page option under the edit heading as there is only one occurrence of each word.
-- Scotty Glenn Cornog user:scottyglenncornog
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyglenncornog (talk • contribs)
Your welcome, as the pleasure was all mine. And thank you... for the rapid editing.
I agree with the edit in itself, but on a side-note, there does exist a proof that there exist an infinite number of primes. If there was a finite number of primes, who could be listed in a list p1,p2,p3,...,pn., multiplying all of all of these primes with one another and then adding +1, would always result in yet another prime number in itself or at least have at least one new prime number in its factorization, hence there are an infinite number of primes. For instance (2x3x5x7)+1 = 211 is obviously neither dividable by 2,3,5 nor 7... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.200.121 (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Third Sentence makes no sense
It begins: "It is a physical science which studies of.." and makes no sense to me. You can't use a word simultaneously as a verb and noun as is done here with "studies". Please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.136 (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for information on prebiotic organic chemistry. I tried prebiotic but it leads me to Prebiotic (nutrition). There is another sense of prebiotic that means "occurring before the advent of life" (per Wiktionary: Wiktionary:prebiotic). I can't seem to find anything in Wikipedia that addresses Prebiotic (chemistry or Prebiotic (biology) (the latter being, it would seem, an oxymoron perhaps). I may be looking in the wrong places. Does Wikipedia perhaps have an article on the subject under another name? Or should we add the concept to the list of topics that perhaps could warrant an article? N2e (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The current two pictures at the top of the article show a) flasks with chemicals and b) a blast furnace. I have edited the page to include a picture of the chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to form water shown on the right. The article was reverted to the original with a short comment stating that - I paraphrase - the old picture was better. I would like to open a discussion about what a relevant picture would be to distill what chemistry is about. There has been a similar discussion in the past, but I think there still is room for improvement. Below, I have started a list of strengths and weakness of the pictures.
Theislikerice (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with some of the weaknesses of the flasks image that you outline below. Nevertheless, it is a good photograph. I do not like your picture because its purpose is not clear. The periodic table in the background seems to serve no useful purpose. The whole image looks fuzzy and lacks clarity. So I would welcome a change of image, but I do not think your image is the one. --Bduke(Discussion)23:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I updated the image to make it less fuzzy at thumbnail size. The background now is the one used for the articles on each element. The positions of hydrogen and oxygen are boxed, and the stoichiometry of water follows from the number of electrons in the outer shell. I removed the chemical formula to replace it with text in the caption.
O2 + 2 H2 → 2 H2O
Chemistry explains and predicts the properties and reactions of substances based on their underlying atomic structure and their chemical bonding. --Theislikerice (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Strength: Synthesis of water picture
It shows a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions are at the core of chemistry.
Even at thumbnail size, you can see the gist of the reaction.
It is a depiction of the structure of the molecules, the chemical bonds, and the stoichiometry of the reaction (i.e. two molecules of H2 react with one molecule of O2).
There are elements and a compound. The compound is one many people know by its chemical formula.
The periodic table in the background gives the basis for the stoichiometry of hydrogen and oxygen in water.
It is a colorful picture
Weakness: Synthesis of water picture
It does not show water on a macroscopic scale. It would be great to have the molecular scale, the macroscopic scale (i.e. a bottle of water, the ocean etc), and a symbolic notation in a single picture.
It is fuzzy and lacks clarity.
This is improved in the new version of the picture
Strength: Flask picture
It is a beautiful picture
The flasks are labeled as various acids and bases
Weakness: Flask picture
There is no chemical insight conveyed by the picture.
All of these solutions are colorless. Having them artificially colored promotes the cliche of chemists being busy handling colorful solutions. That is not the reality.
It would be dangerous to store bases and acids right next to each other in glass bottles.
It is not good laboratory practice to store bases in glass bottles because it leaches out the cations.
The concentrations of the solutions aren't shown on the bottles. In a chemical laboratory, you would have to throw these solutions out because it is not clear how concentrated they are.
Strength: Furnace picture
It is a beautiful, dramatic picture
It shows that chemistry is necessary to produce steel, one of the most basic building materials
It shows a chemical reaction
It shows that the field of chemistry is linked to economic activity
Weakness: Furnace picture
The caption does not explain the chemistry
The caption restates definitions of chemistry given in the other image caption and in the lede in slightly different wording
Another way of improving the images would be to explicitly say why they are relevant to chemistry in the figure legend.
Weak Summary Section
The current summary section strikes me as weak. I would re-write it or get rid of it (as is, the two introductory paragraphs do a better job than the summary section.) -- Ithacagorges01:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Ditto on summary section. First sentence says: "Chemistry is the scientific study of interaction of chemical substances[3] that are constituted of atoms or the subatomic particles: protons, electrons and neutrons." Chemistry is not just the study of interactions. Chemistry is the science of the composition, structure, properties, and reactions or interactions of matter, especially of atomic and molecular systems.Danleywolfe (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
No, chemistry is NOT the science of the composition, structure, properties, reactions or interactions of MATTER, at least not in a general sense. This definition would, for instance, include solid state physics, particle physics, and even classical mechanics. The term "matter" is not appropriate here. Take a look at the german version of the chemistry article, where the definition is based on chemical elements and compounds. This is way more appropriate. Also, the meaning of the term "properties" is completely unclear in this context. Please remove it. -- mbrennwa 27 September 2011
Kick it off with a numeral
Under the Element subheading, a sentence is started with the numeral 94. If I recall correctly, it is considered unacceptable to begin sentences with numerals, therefore, this situation ought to be corrected. (I apparently don't have the right to edit things just yet.) -- Techpriest88 (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The parenthetical note "the etymology of the word has been much disputed" is a bit too editorial, particularly for this type of article. Furthermore it reads like a caveat which is unrelated to the actual subject of the article. Suggest using something shorter, for example:
In the past month, this article has been changed substantially. I like that the "summary" section has been removed, but I think the lead section could be substantially improved by shortening it, and removing detail from it, as suggested in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. In particular, the lengthy discussion of the difference between physics and chemistry should be removed or moved into a footnote. In my mind, a succinct lead paragraph should mention atoms and molecules, chemical bonds, chemical reactions, what chemists do (synthesize new compounds, characterize samples through separation and instrumental techniques such as spectroscopy, etc) and what chemistry accomplishes (synthesis of substances such as polymers, synthesis of man-made bioactive compounds such as statins). For an example of how brief this could be, see User:Theislikerice/chemistry.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I agree with the Wikipedia user that posted the talk-page article previous to this one, in that the lengthy discussion of the difference between physics and chemistry should be removed. There is a paragraph completely about physics in the article of chemistry. Also, it seems written by someone who define chemistry only through incomplete heuristic representations. I apologize for the length of my explanation, but though it necessary. Here is the paragraph in question:
"Physics also studies matter, but includes subatomic matter and the properties of non-matter entities such as electromagnetic radiation, even when it does not interact with atoms. Thus, physics is the science of study of the laws governing all forces and particles in nature, including forces such as gravitation, the weak force and the strong force, all of which are outside the province of chemistry"...
I think it is best to get rid of the part with no substitution, but, if substitution is required, then the above paragraph should be changed to:
"Modern Chemists uses many of the laws that Physicists use, so both sciences often overlap when applied. In contrast to Chemistry, Physics involves studying forces and matter in all its forms but it is (generally) less focused in working with terms and tools that facilitate the analysis of molecular transformations, such as functional groups, reaction mechanisms, reaction rates and organic synthesis, for example"...
Justification/Discussion of why changes are required:
Chemistry is not just the study of elements and compounds in isolation of the phenomena that causes the changes in matter or in isolation of the techniques used to study such matter ("ordinary" matter, at least). When this is taken into account, it should be noted that chemistry does study some subatomic matter and the properties of electromagnetic radiation, and basically study many aspects of nature that physics study (not all but a lot of them). Note the different definitions of Chemistry through time, specially Dumas and Pauling, which uses the word substance in particular. Forces are not isolated phenomena (isolated from "ordinary", atomic matter, that described in terms of the periodic table), so, in the course of studying "ordinary" matter, it is inevitable that chemistry will study at least some aspects of the laws governing these forces. It seems that the paragraph I'm referring to was written by someone who wanted to dismiss the specifics to finally draw a line between chemistry and physics, which is an understandable goal for definition purposes. But such comparison between chemistry and physics should be more accurate than what was stated. Not being accurate enough can mislead readers who are enthusiastic about the possibilities in Chemistry.
I don't mean to say that chemistry study the phenomena with the same depth (and it is truth that physics study gravitation completely while chemists only know the definition and are "aware" of it). Physicist study other extraordinary events completely (e.g. neutrinos and black holes) that chemist don't (although the chemist specialization made them more familiar with other concepts that physicist don't study, at least not in depth). Physicist do study the most fundamental principles of physical reality in more depth than any other category of scientist or engineers, so the fundamental side of physics is out of the question. Anyway, the paragraph in question may still be misleading for reasons stated here (Chemistry should not be defined in isolation from the activities, terms and concepts used in the way to master the discipline). Furthermore, the fundamental part of physics doesn't mean chemistry is outside of theoretical considerations, so good chemists will master those laws of physics that both disciplines share. It is simplistic to think in terms of representations when both sciences study things so ubiquitous to our every day lives. Understand that this paragraph is not talking about which is more practical, something that is not necessarily synonymous with "fundamental"- and I don't mean to say that one science is less practical than the other. But, my point (summarized) is: Let's try not to define chemistry in terms of what physics can teach us, but in terms of what modern chemistry can teach us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 07:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph I wrote is not perfect, but your suggestion is hardly better. In the last analysis, chemistry is the study of chemical bonds and bonding, and that's about it. Perhaps we should say that. Since Schroedinger et al., with major nod to Pauling, this has been reduced to physics, and so I'm really not in agreement that chemistry is not a branch of physics (or shouldn't be, whether profs agree or not). But somewhere it should be mentioned all the stuff that physics is interested in that isn't chemistry. Basically that's all the forces but EM, and all the particles that aren't electrons and atoms. Chemistry cares about atom-atom interactions, but even solid-state physics isn't really chemistry, so chem is very limited. I've gone back and taken out the physics paragraph, but also qualfied some of the other stuff. Chemistry treats all kinds of topics, but they all go back (in the last analysis) to atom-atom interactions. There are a few people who call themselves chemists who are really atomic physicists, for example. They don't really step fully into chemistry until they apply atomic physics to formation of chemical bonds. The same goes for chemists who study (some) fundamental particles and forces-- they only do it in service of understanding chemical bonds, or understanding bulk properties of matter in terms of atom-atom interactions. Remove those as object of study, or motive for study, and you don't really have a chemist any more.SBHarris17:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I did mentioned before that the best way to go is to get rid of the paragraph and put no substitution to it, so my sincere thanks for listening-
About your comment, I think is another topic. I'm not sure if this is the best place to debate the limits of Chemistry or Physics, a complex issue. But think about this for a moment: Do students of chemistry only learn about chemical bonds and bonding? Clearly not. As an example, the students of a nuclear chemistry course will no doubt need to know something about nuclear (strong) force, even when it far less than those who study Quantum Chromodynamics. But you can't isolate the aspect of theory from the objective or scope of the discipline. Part of Physics or not, think in terms of what students of chemistry can find and learn and what applications can be imparted with the science, and forget about classifications. W can't manipluate atoms directly, we need to understand factors and principles behind the environment. Some aspects of physics well no doubt be part of chemistry (Statistical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Nuclear transmutations, Thermodynamics, Band theory of solids, Spectroscopy, etc. the list continues)... So, apart from the fact that Physics is awesome, chemistry is complex enough too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.86.132 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs)
Again I would argue that the "chemical" topics you mention are really physics, unless they have the goal of explaining things in terms of chemical bonds. Atomic spectoscopy is atomic physics; molecular spectroscopy is chemistry. The band theory of solids is a classic topic in solid state physics, not chemistry. Nuclear transmutations are not chemistry, they are physics. As radioactive decay affect chemistry ("hot atom chemistry") it affects chemical bonds. Quantum mechanics covers everything from quantum chromodynamics (not chemistry) to high energy physics (not chemistry). QM for chemists is the QM of the chemical bond.
You mention thermodynamics. But remember that bulk thermodynamics doesn't even bother with atoms, and was not started by chemists. Rather it was developed in the pre-atomic era by Carnot, Clausius, Clapyron, Maxwell, Boltzmann-- none of them chemists. After statistical thermo came along with emphasis on atom-atom interactions (especially chemical potentials), the chemists got involved, and thermo became traditionally a chemical subject due to these atomic interactions. The stuff about bulk matter sort of went along for the ride, but it as well have stayed with physics where it started. However, it's really ONLY the atoms that gives it a claim to being a "chemical subject," taught in "physical chemistry" classes. The "physical" there being a clue that a lot of is really classical physics. SBHarris17:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I will reiterate my main message: You are focusing on the historical parts, and this has no relevance to what the study of chemistry means today. Quantum mechanics for chemists is non-relativistic quantum mechanics as developed by Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and similar scientists and Quantum Chemistry that came with Pauling and others. This all is teached in a Physical Chemistry class, among other things. We don't learn all of it, and, yes, we use it to understand things about atoms and molecules, but do that means we learn a different theory? No. Transmutation can be found in general chemistry books on the nuclear chemistry section, much more in nuclear chemistry books; so do band theory of solids, statistical thermodynamics, thermodynamics laws, etc. We must understand that many of the principles of physics are not just to understand the chemical bond,this is inaccurate, for many of the principles of physics that are integrated into chemistry are used many other purposes, like, for example, for making new materials with different conductive properties or to analyze whether it would speed up a reaction or not. You can't watch reactions bond by bond... So the parameters that are taken into account are much more than atom-atom interactions. You control pressure, light, electric fields, etc. You are too much focused in either historic data that doesn't change what chemistry is today, or you think of chemistry in models that are not really that much used in chemistry. You can't work with bonds if you don't understand those concepts that physics share with chemistry. But chemistry today doesn't need to go running into physics books or physics experts every few experiments, it has integrated what it needs from other sciences (same applies to it's relationships to many other sciences, as in biochemistry, geochemistry, etc)... Physicist can study molecules also, but this doesn't mean that chemistry is not chemistry because it uses concepts from physics. The focus of the combination of theories is application to chemistry or with chemistry... regardless of the history of how these theories came to exist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 19:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Redox
The article states:
changed by either loseing(sic) electrons(reduction) or gaining electrons(oxidation)
The sentence below should either have a matching quotation mark added before the second instance of the word "a" or the ending quotation mark removed. As this article appears to use American English, if the second quotation mark is added, the period should be moved inside the quotes.
According to the IUPAC gold book a chemical reaction is a process that results in the interconversion of chemical species". 144.211.101.117 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I only see a single instance of that term (in an image-caption for benzene), so I linked it. Could you clarify what further you think needs to be linked? DMacks (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Article organization proposal
I'm hoping to better organize the article and would like feedback into how the sections should be arranged. Right now my thoughts look something like this:
History
Etymology
Theory
Atom
Element
Compound
Substance
Molecule
Mole and amount of substance
Ions and salts
Acidity and basicity
Phase
Bonding
Reaction
Redox
Equilibrium
Energy
Chemical laws
Practice: talk here about the lab, common techniques and lab equipment, etc.
Subdisciplines
Chemical industry
Professional societies
In summary I would like to move history to the first section, and make etymology a subsection of history. Remove the Basic Concepts section which is just one sentence and just move all of its subsections under theory, and lastly create one Practice section which will discuss how chemistry is practiced and applied, and make the remaining sections into subsections of practice. I'd like to start reorganizing as soon as some form of consensus can be produced on how this article should be organized, so any feedback is much appreciated.OakRunner (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Per a silent consensus, I'm going to go ahead and be bold and make these changes. Feel free to revert and/or talk about this if you have any issues.OakRunner (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a problem with this article. I don't have the wikipedia or chemistry knowhow to fix it, but I'm posting it here in the hopes that somebody does.
76.10.169.183 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Representation?
I'm probably just being dense, but I've tried several different approaches, to no avail. When I visit a page that is about a particular chemical, I see different representations of the chemical (ball-and-stick, for example), but nowhere have I been able to find a Wikipedia page that actually explains the different types of diagram, how they are made, and what they represent. It appears to me that they are useful in different ways, depending on what one is trying to represent, and I'd like to learn more, but I can't figure out where.
Structural formula are 2D graphical representations that describe the atom connectivities in a molecule but Molecular models describe what the molecule looks like in 3D or even what they actually look like. Both representations supplement each other so expect to see one of each on a chemical page. The molecule page should be more helpful on this topic V8rik (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2014
This edit request to Chemistry has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section "Reaction":
It results in some energy exchange between the constituents of the reaction as well with the system environment which may be designed vessels which are often laboratory glassware.
should be
It results in some energy exchange between the constituents of the reaction as well as with the system environment, which may be designed vessels, which are often laboratory glassware.
but might be better worded as
It results in some energy exchange between the constituents of the reaction as well as with the system environment, which may be designed vessels—often laboratory glassware.
Done--Oneiros (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Fixed Nice job spotting the error.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the suggestion! —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)