Reductionism: Physics-Chemistry-Biology

[TheChadd]

Hey guys,

Well I'm having this argument with a close friend of mine who's about to begin her 2nd year of undergraduate science. The argument is essentially about the most basic form of reductionism: I explained that physics 'comes' from mathematics, chemistry comes from physics and biology comes from chemistry.

She's someone who loves chemistry and seemed angry at the suggestion that it is reducible down to physics... I gave some examples of the way chemistry is working off the foundation of physics but they didn't seem to satisfy. I'm wonder if anyone could offer up a simple way to show her exactly what I mean - Or if there really is strong argument out there about whether chemistry is reducible to physics (I'm doubting it).

Thanks.

[Trying2Bopen]

I like to say that math is to physics what letters are to words. Words are to a sentence what physics is to chemistry and a sentence is to a paragraph as chemistry is to biology. Understanding grammar does not mean you will be able to grasp literature, but it is a foundational component. Grammar being essential to literature does not mean it is “better”, they are two different beasts in many ways.

And I suppose language is to a letter as philosophy is to math, eh? :)

(p.s. this is a website on the “power of ten”:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/
I always found it a nice illustration, though it may or may not be helpful)

[TheChadd]

Hmm yea that analogy may help because she seems to feel (she did highschool chemistry, biology, physics) that because knowledge of chemistry helped her more in those subjects than knowledge of physics helped her in chemistry that it's not a foundation.

[geni]

She's someone who loves chemistry and seemed angry at the suggestion that it is reducible down to physics... I gave some examples of the way chemistry is working off the foundation of physics but they didn't seem to satisfy. I'm wonder if anyone could offer up a simple way to show her exactly what I mean - Or if there really is strong argument out there about whether chemistry is reducible to physics (I'm doubting it).


Can you prove that the Schrödinger equation is solvable for all systems?


To a large extent you claim balances on what you think the role of the experiment in science is. If you think it is central then large areas of physics come from chemistry.

If you think that the role of the experiment is to try and disprove a theory then again much of phyics is derived from chemistry.

Alternately if we go for Kuhn's approach then we can say that under the current Paradigm it could be argued that chemistry comes from physics although since it is trivial to show that organic chemists do not spend a vast amount of time calculateing waveforms this is somewhat open to question.

If we go for Feyerabend's aproach (which does have the benifit of fitting historical trends rather well) then the question is meaningless.

[Jimbo07]

Just to muddy the waters:

What about physical chemistry?

or

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting."
- E. Rutherford

how about our entire life sciences building thinking theoretcal physicists practice 'voodoo science' at best, because it is math-based and not observation based?

And is all chemistry based on physics because chemical bonds are electronic interactions?

When you get into academic labels and compartments you're messing around with the dark forces by making statements with too much certainty ;).

[Loss Leader]

Well I'm having this argument with a close friend of mine who's about to begin her 2nd year of undergraduate science.

It's nice to be involved in a debate that is, by its very definition, sophomoric.

[Trying2Bopen]

It's nice to be involved in a debate that is, by its very definition, sophomoric.

Ha ha :D

[Slimething]

The sciences complement each other. I could not say that one wholly derives from another as, others have already pointed out, one can do any one without really touching upon the other two primaries. Then there are the derived sciences that really are so specialized that they really should be considered sciences on their own.

And, let's not forget geology. I have a very good geologist friend who would argue vehemently that his is a science in its own right.

It's all a study of nature, after all, using a logical and rigorous method so my advice is not to get too stuck on labels and turf.

[kalen]

Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks.

Show me a chemist who cares about quarks.

[Roboramma]

The science of chemistry may not have derived itself from physics, but everything that is happening chemically (and that chemisty describes) is due to the interplay of forces that physics describes.
The problem is that when there are too many particles involved the problem becomes so complex that we need to view it from a new level of analysis.

[TheChadd]

The science of chemistry may not have derived itself from physics, but everything that is happening chemically (and that chemisty describes) is due to the interplay of forces that physics describes.
The problem is that when there are too many particles involved the problem becomes so complex that we need to view it from a new level of analysis.

I generally agree with this incase this person or others have mistaken my position on the matter. I don't think one is 'better' or 'more important' by any stretch.

[fishbob]

The science of chemistry may not have derived itself from physics, but everything that is happening chemically (and that chemisty describes) is due to the interplay of forces that physics describes.
The problem is that when there are too many particles involved the problem becomes so complex that we need to view it from a new level of analysis.

Slimething: See above - this also applies very much to geology, and the other natural (as in nature study) sciences.

[fishbob]

I generally agree with this incase this person or others have mistaken my position on the matter. I don't think one is 'better' or 'more important' by any stretch.

In case anybody may have mistaken my position, I agree with TheChadd.

[cyborg]

Physics deals with EVERYTHING physical.

Chemistry deals with a subset of the physical - namely the way atoms share electrons.

Biology deals with a subset of the physical - namely carbon machine constructs.

You may not have to know the ins and outs of physics to do chemistry or biology but a 'total' knowledge of physics implicitly leads to 'total' knowledge of the other two.

[Zygar]

Physics deals with EVERYTHING physical.

Chemistry deals with a subset of the physical - namely the way atoms share electrons.

Biology deals with a subset of the physical - namely carbon machine constructs.

You may not have to know the ins and outs of physics to do chemistry or biology but a 'total' knowledge of physics implicitly leads to 'total' knowledge of the other two.

Fortunately for chemists and biologists, a total knowledge of physics is effectively impossible.

[geni]

You may not have to know the ins and outs of physics to do chemistry or biology but a 'total' knowledge of physics implicitly leads to 'total' knowledge of the other two.

Can you prove that the Schrödinger equation is solvable for all systems?

[Dilb]

Can you prove that the Schrödinger equation is solvable for all systems?

What do you mean by solvable? An analytic solution isn't even possible for helium. Even Newtonian gravitation can't be solved for the solar system, but that never seemed to be a reason to think it was wrong. I'd expect that approximations to the Schrödinger equation would allow you to derive any chemical principles, although it might be practically impossible for large enough systems, like trying to predict enzyme activity. I suppose if you must satisfy the philosophy of science types it might be better to say "in principle any theory of chemistry or biology can be derived from the theories of physics".

[Ziggurat]

Can you prove that the Schrödinger equation is solvable for all systems?

Poorly framed question. Do you mean analytically solvable? Do you mean numerically solvable? Do you mean does a solution exist? Your question is ambiguous.

Better question: Can the Schrödinger equation describe the time evolution of any input wave function? The answer is, yes.

There are no known phenomena in chemistry or biology which do not operate according to the laws of physics. In an abstract sense, these sciences can indeed be reduced to physics. But as a practical matter, they are well served by treating them as different sciences. With chemistry, the distinction isn't always even clear to begin with (quantum chemistry, for example, pretty much IS physics), but it's generally the case with biology. Secondly, there are a lot of systems (including even systems within physics) where we either aren't interested in trying to solve problems from first principles or where (because of the complexity of the system) we cannot do so for practical reasons. Many such systems are ammenable to treatment with emmergent principles (such as natural selection in biology) much more easily than with first principles (good luck trying to construct the quantum mechanical wave function of a fruit fly). But that doesn't mean that the first principles aren't still operative, and don't underly the emmergent principles. So yes, all chemistry is physics, but that statement doesn't mean much on a practical level.

[TheChadd]

Poorly framed question. Do you mean analytically solvable? Do you mean numerically solvable? Do you mean does a solution exist? Your question is ambiguous.

Better question: Can the Schrödinger equation describe the time evolution of any input wave function? The answer is, yes.

There are no known phenomena in chemistry or biology which do not operate according to the laws of physics. In an abstract sense, these sciences can indeed be reduced to physics. But as a practical matter, they are well served by treating them as different sciences. With chemistry, the distinction isn't always even clear to begin with (quantum chemistry, for example, pretty much IS physics), but it's generally the case with biology. Secondly, there are a lot of systems (including even systems within physics) where we either aren't interested in trying to solve problems from first principles or where (because of the complexity of the system) we cannot do so for practical reasons. Many such systems are ammenable to treatment with emmergent principles (such as natural selection in biology) much more easily than with first principles (good luck trying to construct the quantum mechanical wave function of a fruit fly). But that doesn't mean that the first principles aren't still operative, and don't underly the emmergent principles. So yes, all chemistry is physics, but that statement doesn't mean much on a practical level.


Yep and this is what I've been taught/agree with. I don't think many accept 'greedy reductionism' as Dennet called it.

[Slimething]

Slimething: See above - this also applies very much to geology, and the other natural (as in nature study) sciences.

You'll get no argument from me there, fishbob. However, if one is going to get down to the very rudiments of "why everything is", mathematics trumps physics. So, let's hear it for the mathematicians. But that isn't even recognized as a science.

Frankly, this topic is what I characterize as scientific bar-talk. It's as relevant and important as who was the best actor ever, the best athlete ever, the best sports team ever, etc. Issues like this are never resolved to anyone's satisfaction but I sure like to drink beer while I'm listening!

So, let's hear it for Nature, yes? That's what we're all studying, no matter what we call it or how humble anyone else considers our passtime.

[balrog666]

Hey guys,

Well I'm having this argument with a close friend of mine who's about to begin her 2nd year of undergraduate science. The argument is essentially about the most basic form of reductionism: I explained that physics 'comes' from mathematics, chemistry comes from physics and biology comes from chemistry.

She's someone who loves chemistry and seemed angry at the suggestion that it is reducible down to physics... I gave some examples of the way chemistry is working off the foundation of physics but they didn't seem to satisfy. I'm wonder if anyone could offer up a simple way to show her exactly what I mean - Or if there really is strong argument out there about whether chemistry is reducible to physics (I'm doubting it).

Thanks.

I disagree. Physics is not reducible to mathematics in spite of the essential nature of mathematics within physics . Ditto for chemistry/physics, the reduction is practically meaningless.

[cyborg]

Mathematics cannot TELL us anything about our world. It cannot be a science.

[TheChadd]

But everything you do in physics would be meaningless without the mathematic principles.

Ditto for chemistry/physics, the reduction is practically meaningless.

The idea isn't to say if you know physics you understand chemistry, but to point out that (as was said earlier in this thread): I like to say that math is to physics what letters are to words. Words are to a sentence what physics is to chemistry and a sentence is to a paragraph as chemistry is to biology. Understanding grammar does not mean you will be able to grasp literature, but it is a foundational component. Grammar being essential to literature does not mean it is “better”, they are two different beasts in many ways.

[Slimething]

Mathematics cannot TELL us anything about our world. It cannot be a science.

I agree with you but there are several instances where anti-intuitive discoveries have been made by following mathematics alone, devoid of human observation. The most famous example is the Theory of Special Relativity.

Like I wrote earlier, I'm not going to participate in what begat what science. That's a fool's game. When I was in college, I had some nebbish physics major taunt me that chemistry was all physics so I wrote down two chemicals and told him to calculate the product of the reaction, if there was any. That worked pretty well.

We're all after the same thing, which is to understand nature and, if you're good at it, you won't limit yourself to the classical definitions of the basic sciences. Use any tool that you find useful and the names be damned.

[cyborg]

I agree with you but there are several instances where anti-intuitive discoveries have been made by following mathematics alone, devoid of human observation.

This is only possible when the maths relates to the real world and the math can only relate to the real world by engaging in physics.

Being able to predict unanticipated phenomena and then seek them out is one of the primary reasons maths is useful but it cannot be said the discovery is complete until the prediction is confirmed - you may be wrong after all.

[DeviousB]

There are no known phenomena in chemistry or biology which do not operate according to the laws of physics.

I would argue that natural selection operates according to the rules of statistics.

[geni]

What do you mean by solvable? An analytic solution isn't even possible for helium. Even Newtonian gravitation can't be solved for the solar system, but that never seemed to be a reason to think it was wrong.


I never said it was wrong. However if you are going to describe chemisty through physics you are going to need to be able to solve the Schrödinger equation for systems or more than 1 electron. Unless you can prove it is posible to do (you don't have to do it just need to prove it is posible) this you can't prove it is posible to derive all chemistry from physics.


I'd expect that approximations to the Schrödinger equation would allow you to derive any chemical principles,


You need kinetics and relativity as well at a mininium.


although it might be practically impossible for large enough systems, like trying to predict enzyme activity. I suppose if you must satisfy the philosophy of science types it might be better to say "in principle any theory of chemistry or biology can be derived from the theories of physics".

First you need to show that it is in thoery posible to solve the Schrödinger equations for multi election systems.

[pgwenthold]

IFirst you need to show that it is in thoery posible to solve the Schrödinger equations for multi election systems.

To what level of accuracy?

That is the question at hand. No, the SE cannot be solved analytically for any multi-electron system. However, with numerical approaches you can come more or less as close as you want to the solution.

No, it's not sophisticated, but the reaction H + H2 is pretty well known based on QM calculations, at least the chemistry of it. Sure, there are plenty of people who are still studying it, but they are focusing on the details of the physics.

Heck, even state-of-the-art dynamics calculations (especially those that are QM based) are not all that far off the mark for complex reactions. For example, the gas phase SN2 reaction is extremely well-described computationally. Similarly, very good success has been achieved with unimolecular reactions. Reaction rates and branching ratios can be calculated.

The limiting factor is the complexity. You have to know enough to include all the relevant coordinates, and for large systems, it's tough to know which of the 3N-6 should be important. In principle, you could just include them all, but that is a resource limitation.

Yes, there is a long way in order to do the calculation on any type of system. However, that is mainly in resources. Right now, we know what we need to do in order to do it, it is just way beyond our capabilities.

The SE can be solved to within "chemical accuracy," which is the accuracy level of typical chemistry measurement. It's not easy to get there (especially with larger systems), but you can if you put enough effort into it.

[Ziggurat]

I would argue that natural selection operates according to the rules of statistics.

Yes, but that's an emergent property. Statistics doesn't describe mechanisms, it describes the logic of what you can conclude from incomplete or imperfect information. Which is why it pops up in so many places. The mechanisms themselves are still physical mechanisms, describable (at least in principle) by physics.

[Ziggurat]

You need kinetics

You aren't under the mistaken impression that the Schrödinger equation cannot handle kinetics, are you?

And yes, the Schrödinger equation can be solved numerically for arbitrary numbers of particles (if you've got the computational power).

[DeviousB]

Yes, but that's an emergent property. Statistics doesn't describe mechanisms, it describes the logic of what you can conclude from incomplete or imperfect information. Which is why it pops up in so many places. The mechanisms themselves are still physical mechanisms, describable (at least in principle) by physics.

Unless you are arguing for strong determinism, there is no way to get from the physical properties of an organism to an example of evolutionary complexity like an eye.

The eye is selected for by the processes of natural selection, not physics. The physics of the eye may be what confer efficiency on it but they do not result in the progressive refinement (or not) of the eye.

Physics may explain how the eye works, it cannot explain why we have them.

[Ziggurat]

Unless you are arguing for strong determinism, there is no way to get from the physical properties of an organism to an example of evolutionary complexity like an eye.

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "strong determinism".

The eye is selected for by the processes of natural selection, not physics.

Natural selection is an emergent property. That doesn't mean it's not still rooted in physics. The organization of hexagonal convection cells in heated liquids is another example of an emergent property of a complex system. There's no simple way to show that such self-organization is what will result using, for example, the Schroedinger equation, but it's all still just physics. The more complex the system, the harder it is to trace emergent properties back to their physical origin (and often times, the less useful such an exercise is anyways). We label things as being something other than physics when we either can't trace the link (because of the complexity) or don't care to, not because the link doesn't exist.

[DanishDynamite]

And yes, the Schrödinger equation can be solved numerically for arbitrary numbers of particles (if you've got the computational power).
Is this correct, even theoretically? How powerful a computer would you need to solve the Schrödinger equation for every particle within 6,000 miles of the Earth's center? Or within 20 AUs of the center? Given that we can't solve the Schrödinger equation for a cup of pond water, I feel your view is even theoretically wrong, unless you posit close to infinite time to solve it in.

[pgwenthold]

Is this correct, even theoretically? How powerful a computer would you need to solve the Schrödinger equation for every particle within 6,000 miles of the Earth's center? Or within 20 AUs of the center? Given that we can't solve the Schrödinger equation for a cup of pond water, I feel your view is even theoretically wrong, unless you posit close to infinite time to solve it in.


There is no such thing as "close to infinite." Every thing else is finite, and is an infinite amount of time short of infinite.

Yes, it can be calculated in a finite amount of time. I just hope there isn't a power outage.

[DanishDynamite]

There is no such thing as "close to infinite." Every thing else is finite, and is an infinite amount of time short of infinite.
I know. I think my meaning is clear. Perhaps I should have put "within the expected life of the Universe assuming a closed Universe".
Yes, it can be calculated in a finite amount of time. I just hope there isn't a power outage.
Yes, but if the expected time to claculate is greater than the expected lifetime of the Universe, can it be said to be even theoretically correct?

[Ziggurat]

Is this correct, even theoretically?

Depends what you mean by theoretically possible. But there are no barriers other than limited computational power.

How powerful a computer would you need to solve the Schrödinger equation for every particle within 6,000 miles of the Earth's center?

Many, many, many orders of magnitude larger than we can envision ever building. The difficulty is that the numerber of calculations needed to solve this numerically scales exponentially with the number of particles you're trying to calculate for. So it doesn't take a system anywhere near this large to become impossible to calculate from a practical perspective. But that exponential scaling problem isn't even unique to quantum mechanics computations - you get the exact same problem trying to calculate Newtonian gravitational interactions of all the stars within a galaxy, for example.

[DanishDynamite]

Depends what you mean by theoretically possible. But there are no barriers other than limited computational power.
And time. Don't forget time. And if the maximum theoretical time remaining for this Universe is limited....is something that takes longer theoretically possible?
Many, many, many orders of magnitude larger than we can envision ever building. The difficulty is that the numerber of calculations needed to solve this numerically scales exponentially with the number of particles you're trying to calculate for. So it doesn't take a system anywhere near this large to become impossible to calculate from a practical perspective. But that exponential scaling problem isn't even unique to quantum mechanics computations - you get the exact same problem trying to calculate Newtonian gravitational interactions of all the stars within a galaxy, for example.
Exactly. The devision of chemistry and physics will last for quite a while, perhaps forever (read: until the end of the Universe)

[Ziggurat]

And time. Don't forget time. And if the maximum theoretical time remaining for this Universe is limited....is something that takes longer theoretically possible?

Doesn't really matter for my argument. What I'm claiming is that physics equations describe all chemical reactions. In that sense, all chemistry is physics. Whether or not WE can solve a particular set of equations is a different question from whether or not they provide an accurate description of the mechanics involved. It's not possible to solve 3-body Newtonian gravity problems analytically, and before the advent of computers not even numerically, but it was quite clear that the equations involved were still an accurate description of the mechanics. And the only limits to computational power are practical limits. It may indeed be the case that the lifetime of the universe limits computational power, but that too is only a practical (though insurmountable) limit, because there's nothing fundamental about the age of the universe.

Exactly. The devision of chemistry and physics will last for quite a while, perhaps forever (read: until the end of the Universe)

I never said otherwise. In fact, let me quote myself from my first post: "So yes, all chemistry is physics, but that statement doesn't mean much on a practical level."

[DanishDynamite]

Doesn't really matter for my argument. What I'm claiming is that physics equations describe all chemical reactions. In that sense, all chemistry is physics. Whether or not WE can solve a particular set of equations is a different question from whether or not they provide an accurate description of the mechanics involved. It's not possible to solve 3-body Newtonian gravity problems analytically, and before the advent of computers not even numerically, but it was quite clear that the equations involved were still an accurate description of the mechanics. And the only limits to computational power are practical limits. It may indeed be the case that the lifetime of the universe limits computational power, but that too is only a practical (though insurmountable) limit, because there's nothing fundamental about the age of the universe.



I never said otherwise. In fact, let me quote myself from my first post: "So yes, all chemistry is physics, but that statement doesn't mean much on a practical level."
I agree. I just thought that the question I posed ("If the maximum theoretical time remaining for this Universe is limited....is something that takes longer theoretically possible? ") was kind of interesting. Wanted to give it a bit more play. :)

[pgwenthold]

I know. I think my meaning is clear. Perhaps I should have put "within the expected life of the Universe assuming a closed Universe".


Why are you assuming that? I thought that at last best interpretation, the universe is essentially balanced, or perhaps even open.



Yes, but if the expected time to claculate is greater than the expected lifetime of the Universe, can it be said to be even theoretically correct?

Note that we are talking about current methodology and equipment.

There is no reason to think that computing power and methodology won't improve substantially in time, as well, such that with appropriate computing resources (say, put every processor we have right now and run them parallel) there would not be a foreseeable time limit to the answer (albeit it could be billions of years, but hey, still within a universal time constraint)

[geni]

You aren't under the mistaken impression that the Schrödinger equation cannot handle kinetics, are you?

Stikes me as being a rather overcomplex way of trying to model the differences between H2O and D2O


And yes, the Schrödinger equation can be solved numerically for arbitrary numbers of particles (if you've got the computational power).

Those are only approximations. To be able to reduce chemistry to physics you would need to be able to show that it is posible for an analytic solution to exist for all systems that appear in chemsitry.

Throw in structures that do anoying things such as haveing both quantum and mocro properties and at the present time phyics is still working on chemistry.

[Schneibster]

First of all you should note that winning isn't always about being right. I suggest you consider which is more important to you before you continue this line of conversation.

I will, however, give you some food for thought.
Hey guys,

Well I'm having this argument with a close friend of mine who's about to begin her 2nd year of undergraduate science. The argument is essentially about the most basic form of reductionism: I explained that physics 'comes' from mathematics, chemistry comes from physics and biology comes from chemistry. I'd argue that physics doesn't come from math, rather more the other way 'round. However, physics does come from observation of the behavior of the world around us; and math describes that behavior.

She's someone who loves chemistry and seemed angry at the suggestion that it is reducible down to physics... I gave some examples of the way chemistry is working off the foundation of physics but they didn't seem to satisfy. I'm wonder if anyone could offer up a simple way to show her exactly what I mean - Or if there really is strong argument out there about whether chemistry is reducible to physics (I'm doubting it).

Thanks.The fact of the matter is that chemistry is about the combination of atoms into molecules, and the behavior of atoms whether in or out of molecules is described by physics. So you are indeed correct. I caution you again, however, that you may find that being right isn't as important as winning. ;)

[Schneibster]

Those are only approximations. To be able to reduce chemistry to physics you would need to be able to show that it is posible for an analytic solution to exist for all systems that appear in chemsitry.Basically, then, you think that chemistry isn't about atoms?

Whatever you're smoking, I need some. 'Cause man, you are HIGH.

[TheChadd]

First of all you should note that winning isn't always about being right. I suggest you consider which is more important to you before you continue this line of conversation.

I was already there shortly after making this post :)

[geni]

Basically, then, you think that chemistry isn't about atoms?

Whatever you're smoking, I need some. 'Cause man, you are HIGH.

Interesting strawman you've got there although there are bits of chemistry that don't worry about atoms they are not areas I deal with.

[pgwenthold]

Those are only approximations. To be able to reduce chemistry to physics you would need to be able to show that it is posible for an analytic solution to exist for all systems that appear in chemsitry..

No, you only need to show that it is possible to obtain a solution that is to the level of "chemical accuracy," i.e. the level of accuracy that can be obtained in the empirical science of chemistry.

You are requiring physics to provide exact solutions in a field that is wrought with uncertainty? Why should physics have to provide an exact (analytical) value for anything when chemistry doesn't have to?

If I carry out a measurement that has an uncertainty of 10%, but if I know I can calculate the same value to within 5%, then the calculation is better than the experiment.

[Ziggurat]

Stikes me as being a rather overcomplex way of trying to model the differences between H2O and D2O

I never claimed that an explicit wave function for a system was the best way of modeling it from a practical standpoint. Of course it often isn't, and I thought I made that rather clear. How one SHOULD solve a problem is usually only a subset of how one COULD solve it.

Those are only approximations.

So what? They are approximations with potentially arbitrary precision.

To be able to reduce chemistry to physics you would need to be able to show that it is posible for an analytic solution to exist for all systems that appear in chemsitry.

Nonsense. Analytic solutions don't exist for Newtonian gravitational interaction of 3 masses, and yet nobody points to that lack as an indication that physics isn't what describes gravity.

[Schneibster]

Interesting strawman you've got there although there are bits of chemistry that don't worry about atoms they are not areas I deal with.Well, if you're dealing with atoms, you're dealing with physics, because that's the science that describes atoms. Chemistry certainly doesn't, at least not in terms of their internal structure; to chemistry, the internal structure of an atom is moot, all you have to know is how atoms combine with one another to form compounds.

I'd like to know precisely what "bits" or "areas" of chemistry you believe don't "worry about" atoms, considering that chemistry is all about how atoms combine with one another to form compounds.

I'd also like to know why, if you're talking about such things, you think that what I said represents a straw man; I responded to what you said, not what you thought you said. Perhaps you should review your posts a bit more carefully before hitting the submit button.

[Schneibster]

I was already there shortly after making this post :)I hope that's good news. ;)

[JamesM]

chemistry is all about how atoms combine with one another to form compounds.

That describes organic and inorganic chemistry reasonably (admittedly, organic chemistry is what most non-chemists think of as chemistry); it's not a good description of physical or analytical chemistry.

To my mind, chemists are more concerned with the behaviour of electrons, albeit normally only the least well-bound electrons. That often involves controlling their behaviour at the level of abstraction that covers a handful to hundreds or thousands of atoms at a time.

[Schneibster]

That describes organic and inorganic chemistry reasonably (admittedly, organic chemistry is what most non-chemists think of as chemistry); it's not a good description of physical or analytical chemistry. "Physical chemistry." I rest my case. ;)

To my mind, chemists are more concerned with the behaviour of electrons, albeit normally only the least well-bound electrons. That often involves controlling their behaviour at the level of abstraction that covers a handful to hundreds or thousands of atoms at a time.Well, first, "electrons without physics" looks like an oxymoron to me; and second, I don't think the level of abstraction matters much, really. Bear in mind that we are finding more and more out about both chaos math and about scaling laws that affect mass behavior, such as the fluctuation theorem (which has modified our understanding of the 2LOT substantially). If we can't describe the activities of hundreds or even millions of atoms today, the time is not far off either for brute force (have you seen the articles recently about the new resist strategy that Intel or someone came up with?) or elegant (like the FT) descriptions of such things.

And the argument here is, "can the principles of the science of chemistry be reduced to the actions of physics?" And I still contend that the answer is, "yes." That is not, to my mind, any indictment of chemistry either as a science, or as a discipline; that it can be so reduced does not necessarily mean that the goals of physicists and those of chemists can be equated one to another, since chemists are interested more in "what" than "why," whereas the interests of physicists are just about the opposite of that, and I see the answers to neither "what" nor "why" as more important one than the other. I suspect that the contrapositive of that last is the reason that the OP's lady friend was less than pleased with the assertion; perhaps that analysis will help with that.

[Mercutio]

To me, the wonderful thing about this silly argument is what happens when the various different levels of abstraction agree.

Lemme 'splain.

I'll start one level of abstraction beyond Biology, actually--Psychology. For most (but, sadly, not all) psychologists, Psychology is a biological science. (For the rest, it must simply be magic.) These psychologists get bent out of shape by biologists claiming that psychology is just biology; these biologists resent the chemists, who are pissed off at physicists, who resent mathemeticians, who are just angry that they can't find dates.

Anyway, at a conference a couple of years ago, a neurobiologist reported on a nerve pathway in honeybees that was moderated by octopamine. His description of the function of this pathway made me think (although it appears he was unaware of the connection) of the Rescorla-Wagner model of classical conditioning. The RW model is a mathematical model that most behaviorists recognize does a fabulous job of predicting classical conditioning phenomena. No behaviorist would ever say "therefore, there is a mechanism that does this"--that would be circular--but it was quite refreshing to hear this guy describing a system, independently discovered, that fits the model exactly. Of course, octopamine would be perfectly describable by a biochemist, and the description would be accepted by any physicist, and so on down the line. It simply worked.

Contrast this with any number of psychological concepts that have been circularly inferred, rather than described from observation. Take the Id, Ego, and Superego: haven't the psychobiologists had enough time to locate these? Don't the biochemists have an understanding? Um...no. They ain't there. Of course, there is no evidence for them in psychology either, other than the behavior they allegedly cause. Purely circular.

Anyway, it doesn't mean the R-W model is right. It just means that this particular evidence does not kick it's feet out from under it. Whereas Freud...or Chomsky's "Language Acquisition Device", or any number of other crap psychology theories...

I love the way sciences mesh.

[Jeff Corey]

Me too. We have biopsychologists who confer with the behaviorists on how to measure things like "reinforcement".
Skinner was not a reductionist, in the sense that we have as our task discovering functional relationships at the level of behavior. Sure, in the ideal world, we will discover how reinforcement works at the biological level, but now we try to do what we know best.

[lenny]

Lemme 'splain.
I'll start one level of abstraction beyond Biology, actually--Psychology. For most (but, sadly, not all) psychologists, Psychology is a biological science. (For the rest, it must simply be magic.) These psychologists get bent out of shape by biologists claiming that psychology is just biology; these biologists resent the chemists, who are pissed off at physicists, who resent mathemeticians, who are just angry that they can't find dates.


it is called physics envy.

(and it stops at physicists, who do not resent mathematicians, although they might sometimes wish the real world was as platonic as many mathematicians believe it is!)

[Schneibster]

Heh, I remember reading some popular physics writer saying that when budding physicists get to college and start learning math, the physics professors all go, "Don't pay any attention to the mathematicians, they're off on a power trip, they'll melt your brain, we'll teach you all the math you need to know."

[Slimething]

"Physical chemistry." I rest my case. ;)

Rest is somewhere else. You're wrong. Physical chemistry encompasses more than quantum mechanics. It also includes thermodynamics, electrochemistry, and the like. If you want to believe in a Theory of Everything that allows physicists to model everything that chemists do, will do or know, you are entitled but it doesn't exist yet and probably never will. I'm an analytical chemist, I know QM and more than how to make molecules come together.

And the argument here is, "can the principles of the science of chemistry be reduced to the actions of physics?" And I still contend that the answer is, "yes."

And, you'd be wrong. :jaw-dropp Five minutes in a chemistry lab tripping over your tongue would be enough to convince you of that.

That is not, to my mind, any indictment of chemistry either as a science, or as a discipline; that it can be so reduced does not necessarily mean that the goals of physicists and those of chemists can be equated one to another...

There, I highlighted your strawman for you. If it can be so reduced, do it. I'd love to stay and watch but I gotta go unquestioningly figure out why a molecule fragments in my mass spectrometer in certain pattern.

[DeviousB]

Natural selection is an emergent property. That doesn't mean it's not still rooted in physics. The organization of hexagonal convection cells in heated liquids is another example of an emergent property of a complex system. There's no simple way to show that such self-organization is what will result using, for example, the Schroedinger equation, but it's all still just physics. The more complex the system, the harder it is to trace emergent properties back to their physical origin (and often times, the less useful such an exercise is anyways). We label things as being something other than physics when we either can't trace the link (because of the complexity) or don't care to, not because the link doesn't exist.

No-one (in biology) is arguing that biological creatures do not follow the principles of physics and chemistry. And if you want to say NS is 'emergent', fine. But it is strongly emergent; it is not directly explainable by the mechanisms of the underlying system. Ergo, does not reduce.

A mutation with a frequency f in a population of animals P results in a 1% improvement in vision, but also a 2% increase in the metabolic cost of the eye. How might physics tell us about how we might expect f to change over time? Or chemistry?

Chemistry can be reduced to physics because the systems of chemistry are specific cases of the systems of physics, chemistry is a special type of physical interaction. Similarly, biochemistry is a special type of chemistry. Developmental biology is a special type of biochemistry. And so on.

But NS doesn't fit so neatly in this little tree. You don't explain the features of NS with the systems of biochemistry, chemistry, physics, etc. You use NS to explain the complexity in particular examples of these systems that they can't explain.

Beisdes, I thought the so called 'laws of physics' were just a result of natural selection (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Cosmos-Lee-Smolin/dp/0195126645) in the first place? Surely then, physics is the emergent process?
;)

[Roboramma]

Rest is somewhere else. You're wrong. Physical chemistry encompasses more than quantum mechanics. It also includes thermodynamics, electrochemistry, and the like. If you want to believe in a Theory of Everything that allows physicists to model everything that chemists do, will do or know, you are entitled but it doesn't exist yet and probably never will. I'm an analytical chemist, I know QM and more than how to make molecules come together.
He didn't say anything about modelling everything chemists do. He said that the complex interactions that chemistry describes are just the interactions of atoms, and the way that atoms interact is described by physics.

When two atoms interact, their interaction will happen in a way that physics can describe. When more than two atoms interact they must necessarily be following the same rules.

Maybe there is some part of chemistry that isn't based on the interactions of (many) atoms - if so please be specific about what it is, because I'm having a hard time imagining it.

[Slimething]

He didn't say anything about modelling everything chemists do. He said that the complex interactions that chemistry describes are just the interactions of atoms, and the way that atoms interact is described by physics.

And I wrote that physics has yet to advance to that stage. Now, you return with the presumptive statement that interactions between atoms can be described by physics. That is not so. I challenged him and now I challenge you to illustrate one chemical reaction, describe the products (odor, color, melting/boiling points, etc.) Choose any reaction you want. I'll wait. Let me know when you're done.

When two atoms interact, their interaction will happen in a way that physics can describe. When more than two atoms interact they must necessarily be following the same rules.

What you are describing is chemistry, not physics. Please attend to challenge above.

Maybe there is some part of chemistry that isn't based on the interactions of (many) atoms - if so please be specific about what it is, because I'm having a hard time imagining it.

Well, I left a big, big hint in the post you replied to. There are many. In analytical chemistry, we exploit the characteristics of a compound or class of compounds to define its composition or its concentration. Physical chemists (if you believe that the word "physical" in a title necessarily involves physics, you should go back to physical education) elucidate the nature of the electronic state in atoms and molecules. Formulation chemists study the properties of mixtures, as do metallurgists.

An earlier post made the excellent point that non-chemists see chemistry as all organic synthesis. That is a level of over-simplification that I find extraordinary in an educated individual. It's tantamount to my believing that physicists only study the motion of boxes on inclined planes.

[Roboramma]

And I wrote that physics has yet to advance to that stage. Now, you return with the presumptive statement that interactions between atoms can be described by physics. That is not so. Okay, point taken. I phrased things poorly. What I am trying to say is that all the forces involved are known. At least the important ones.
From this we can conclude that if we could analyse these forces well enough we could model the interactions. Niether I nor anyone else is saying that we actually can do so, just that the forces involved are known.

If you aren't suggesting that there is some other force at play, then I don't see how chemistry isn't reducible to physics. Will any particle be affected by any other in a way that contradicts known physics?
Or are you suggesting that this is some other force involved.
This is a serious question, I don't know that much about either chemistry or physics and am hoping to have my own errors shown to me.


I challenged him and now I challenge you to illustrate one chemical reaction, describe the products (odor, color, melting/boiling points, etc.) Choose any reaction you want. I'll wait. Let me know when you're done. As I said I phrased things poorly. My bad. But I make no claim to be able to do that, or that anyone can. Obviously we are very very far from that.

What you are describing is chemistry, not physics. Please attend to challenge above. Point taken.

Well, I left a big, big hint in the post you replied to. There are many. In analytical chemistry, we exploit the characteristics of a compound or class of compounds to define its composition or its concentration. Are you suggesting that the characterists of a compound don't depend on the characterists of the atoms that it's made of and the way that those atoms interact, or that the way that those atoms interact is not itself dependent upon physics?
If physics doesn't describe the chemically relevent characteristics of atoms (I think it does, but whatever) are they not dependent upon the characteristics of the particles that make up those atoms and the way that they interact?

Physical chemists (if you believe that the word "physical" in a title necessarily involves physics, you should go back to physical education) Thanks for the advice. I don't.
elucidate the nature of the electronic state in atoms and molecules. Formulation chemists study the properties of mixtures, as do metallurgists. Again, see what I said above.

An earlier post made the excellent point that non-chemists see chemistry as all organic synthesis. That is a level of over-simplification that I find extraordinary in an educated individual. It's tantamount to my believing that physicists only study the motion of boxes on inclined planes.
Well, as I don't pretend to be an educated person, just one who's trying to understand, I won't pretend to even know what you mean by organic synthesis.

I'm very happy for you to explain things to me to the point that I say, "Oh! I get it now, there is something going on in chemistry that isn't just the interactions of particles." I'm arguing for the case that I think is true simply because that seems like the best way to get you to explain yours.

[Ziggurat]

No-one (in biology) is arguing that biological creatures do not follow the principles of physics and chemistry. And if you want to say NS is 'emergent', fine. But it is strongly emergent; it is not directly explainable by the mechanisms of the underlying system. Ergo, does not reduce.

We cannot reduce it now (and might not ever). But we also have limited intelligence to figure these things out. Our particular limitations don't mean that it is impossible to reduce. It's just like irreducible complexity in biology: without proof that something is irreducible, the inability to reduce it should not be taken as a sign of anything more profound than our own inadequacy.

[DeviousB]

We cannot reduce it now (and might not ever). But we also have limited intelligence to figure these things out. Our particular limitations don't mean that it is impossible to reduce. It's just like irreducible complexity in biology: without proof that something is irreducible, the inability to reduce it should not be taken as a sign of anything more profound than our own inadequacy.

In otherwords you have no proof that NS can be reduced, and introduce a strawman as justification. Natural selection isn't an 'irreducibly complex' bit of physics, it isn't physics.

What element of physics is essential to the operation of NS? How do we then create computer models with no physics in them at all and still have them evolve through NS?

Can you demonstrate any link between NS and physics other than they can both apply to physical objects?

[Ziggurat]

In otherwords you have no proof that NS can be reduced,

Proof? No, there can be no proof that it's reducible unless you actually reduce it. Rather, I have reason to believe it is reducible and NO reason to think it isn't. More below.

and introduce a strawman as justification.

It's not a strawman unless I attribute the position to you. I did not.

Natural selection isn't an 'irreducibly complex' bit of physics, it isn't physics.

This is turning into a semantic debate about what it means to "reduce" something from biology to physics, which is really not very interesting. More below.

What element of physics is essential to the operation of NS? How do we then create computer models with no physics in them at all and still have them evolve through NS?

How good a model is depends upon what you demand of that model. That you can throw away details from the model and still have it work doesn't mean those details aren't critical to the real-world operation of the system. For example, your natural selection model probably doesn't take into account details like sperm motility, womb pH levels, etc. even though those are all biological factors which the real-world phenomenon most certainly depends upon. Why? Because the model works even without that level of detail, because the demands on the model are very limited. A model which included those details wouldn't be worse, it would probably be better, but the added complexity probably does not produce enough improvement to justify the extra effort. The fact that something can be reduced does not mean from a practical standpoint that it should be. As a general rule, one should use the simplest model that is accurate enough, not the most accurate model available.

If you could model the entire physics of an ecosystem (something we cannot do and quite possibly never will be able to do for purely practical reasons), I expect we would indeed find that it behaves according to natural selection, WITHOUT putting natural selection into the model explicitly. That is what it means to be an emmergent property, and if a property is emmergent, then it is at least in principle reducible. If it is NOT reducible, then that means that no matter how complex we make our physical simulation, it would not match reality. And that cannot happen unless there is some process going on which does NOT obey physics as we understand it, but actually violates it. While that might be possible (I can't prove that natural selection is reducible, and we cannot construct such massively complex models to test them against reality), there is no evidence that any such processes actually occur (ie, there's no reason to think it isn't reducible).

[Slimething]

Okay, point taken. I phrased things poorly. What I am trying to say is that all the forces involved are known. At least the important ones.
From this we can conclude that if we could analyse these forces well enough we could model the interactions. Niether I nor anyone else is saying that we actually can do so, just that the forces involved are known.

Roboramma, I apologize for the tone of my response. It was generally unfriendly and I was more peeved at shneibster than anything else. I can only conclude the man has not the faintest idea of what chemistry involves or he would not have written something so ignorant. I believed you were parroting him.

Let's get to it. All the major forces known, yes. All the forces known, no. Even then, we can say the same about the more popular sports as the gaming world has gotten sophisticated enough that the leading software includes player's tendencies and individual athletic skills. So, why not just model the games? Because, as human foibles, there are also certain aspects of chemistry that it would take too long to include in a model or are not yet known. Hell, if we could model to that degree, it would be a cinch to program cancer cell receptors and design the magic bullet to obliterate these cells.

If you aren't suggesting that there is some other force at play, then I don't see how chemistry isn't reducible to physics. Will any particle be affected by any other in a way that contradicts known physics?
Or are you suggesting that this is some other force involved.
This is a serious question, I don't know that much about either chemistry or physics and am hoping to have my own errors shown to me.

And it's a very good question. Philosophically, it's easy to say that, as all materials are made of atoms and physics can characterize a simple atom, that every science which studies materials made of atoms must be reducible to physics. Theoretically, I would agree that, if physics were capable of defining higher complexities, that it would rule all the known scientific universe. But, it can't. Don't get me wrong, I love physics and am spellbound what has been achieved but it can't yet, nor every will, replace chemistry let alone biology which is even more complex. I believe that Godel's Theorem probably comes into play here. Yes, there must be forces at play that neither physics nor chemistry know yet.

Are you suggesting that the characterists of a compound don't depend on the characterists of the atoms that it's made of and the way that those atoms interact, or that the way that those atoms interact is not itself dependent upon physics?

I'll declare it outright. Yes, there are characteristics of compounds that do not depend on the interaction of the atoms it consists of. That's not surprising to someone who knows chemistry. Not all characteristics can be deduced from the components therein. One of the major aspects that physics can't address is toxicity. Ordinary table salt comprises two deadly elements but it's relatively non-toxic to us. Odor cannot be modeled from atomic interaction. Strangely, the color of conjugated organic molecules can be modeled but that's more from empiricism than theory.

If physics doesn't describe the chemically relevent characteristics of atoms (I think it does, but whatever) are they not dependent upon the characteristics of the particles that make up those atoms and the way that they interact?

I think it's fairly established that chemically relevant characteristics are not wholly predictable from current physical knowledge. Why? Dunno. Maybe you'll find out.

Well, as I don't pretend to be an educated person, just one who's trying to understand, I won't pretend to even know what you mean by organic synthesis.

You are an educated person. It was I acting like a boor. Organic synthesis is the preparation of more complex organic molecules from simpler organic or inorganic molecules. Those are the guys in the white coats with all the fancy glassware. These are the guys who can make pharmaceuticals from basic building blocks. They are quite talented and, no, they cannot be replaced by a computer program. Admittedly, a lot of the theory behind what is done there has been successfully modeled but billions are still spent "playing the game".

So, there's my point. Be well. :)

[pgwenthold]

I'll declare it outright. Yes, there are characteristics of compounds that do not depend on the interaction of the atoms it consists of. That's not surprising to someone who knows chemistry.


I guess I am the exception, then. yes, I know chemistry.


Not all characteristics can be deduced from the components therein. One of the major aspects that physics can't address is toxicity. Ordinary table salt comprises two deadly elements but it's relatively non-toxic to us.


Actually, someone who knows chemistry will know that table salt is not made of atomic elements, but is made of ions.

Their are huge differences between elemental sodium and sodium ion, and they originate in and are reflected in the physics.


Odor cannot be modeled from atomic interaction.


What? Odor is all about molecular shape and intermolecular interactions!


Strangely, the color of conjugated organic molecules can be modeled but that's more from empiricism than theory.

Only to the extent that the concept of "color" is empirical. To the extent that color results from the absorption of light, it is completely calculable! In fact, that is one thing that is done pretty well nowadays (although it requires adequate dynamic correlation in the excited state). Not quite as accurate as structures and vibrational absorption frequencies, but still pretty good. In fact, many people use "color" calculations to help identify transient species.

[Slimething]

I guess I am the exception, then. yes, I know chemistry.

OK, pg, explain stereochemical phenomena in light of strictly intramolecular interaction between atoms.

Actually, someone who knows chemistry will know that table salt is not made of atomic elements, but is made of ions.

You're just quibbling here. How am I going to give you vial of sodium ion? What you are saying is that elemental sodium and elemental chlorine will NOT form table salt on combination?

Their are huge differences between elemental sodium and sodium ion, and they originate in and are reflected in the physics.

Please do go on about the physics of elemental sodium and ionic sodium, pg. This will be fascinating. Please do explain. Explain why and how they are different using only physics. This will be rather delightful.

What? Odor is all about molecular shape and intermolecular interactions!

Ahem, the point in question is to whether or not physics can account for all chemical phenomena, pg. Even so, can you put up the physics as to why some chemicals smell sweet and some not? Start with carbonyl chloride. That's an easy one that smells like hay. I'll just stand over here so as not to be in your way.

Only to the extent that the concept of "color" is empirical. To the extent that color results from the absorption of light, it is completely calculable!

Thanks, that's what I wrote. But it's only true in some cases, pg. Again, please, do carbonyl chloride. Please calculate its color using only physics.

[Cuddles]

I think Dawkins discussed this whole thing rather well.

Look at an aeroplane. You can see the whole plane as one thing and study how it flies. You can look at it as made of several large structures like wings and body and see how they interact with each other. You can look at individual components and how they connect, how the engines work and so on. You can look at the materials used to make components and see how they react under different conditions and with each other. You can look at the atoms in the materials and see how they effect their properties. You can look at the particles that make up atoms and see why the atoms behave the way they do. You can look at the fundamental things that make up the particles in atoms and see why it is even possible for atoms to exist. No doubt one day we will be able to go even further than this.

All these are perfectly valid ways of looking at a plane, and they are all reducible to a more fundamental view, but this does not mean that one is the correct way, or that any way is better than any other. A plane is made of atoms, you cannot deny this, but this does not mean that designing an engine based on quantum physics is sensible, practicle and certainly not useful. In the same way, chemistry is entirely made up of physics, because it studies things that are entirely governed by the laws of physics. This does not mean that it is in any way useful to try to derive all of chemiistry through quantum mechanics, but it does mean that it is just plain stupidity to try to claim that it is not based on physics. In the same way, to study the function of the liver you use biology because you simply don't care what individual quarks are doing, even though everything that happens only happens because of them.

And as others have pointed out, maths is completely different. Biology, chemistry and physics are all sciences that focus on different scales. Maths is the language that science speaks.

[pgwenthold]

Thanks, that's what I wrote. But it's only true in some cases, pg. Again, please, do carbonyl chloride. Please calculate its color using only physics.

Do you think the absorption bands of carbonyl chloride cannot be calculated?

You give me a good computer with code for EOM- or MR-CCSD(T) that I can extrapolate to an infinite basis set, and I'll be able to calculate the long wavelength absorption of carbonyl chloride.

Can it be reduced to physics? Absolutely! Actually, I am surprised that you even bring this up, because it is such a trivial example of where physics _can_ be used to calculate "chemical" properties.

In terms of odor, yes, it is complicated. But it is doable, which is the question (show that the substrate will activate the same receptors as does those in freshly cut hay - that's an issue of structure and intermolecular forces, which are subject to physics principles)

Please do go on about the physics of elemental sodium and ionic sodium, pg. This will be fascinating. Please do explain. Explain why and how they are different using only physics. This will be rather delightful.


Oh, where to start...how about "total angular momentum of the wave function"? Sodium ion S = 0. Sodium atom: S = 1/2

How about "total electronic charge"? Sodium atom = 0, sodium ion = +1

Charge and angular momentum are basic physics concepts.

How about stability? Can physics tell me that Na is more reactive than Na+? Absolutely. Calculate the first and second ionization energies of Na, and they are extremely different (I mean, 40 eV different)

Man, the physics of elemental sodium and sodium ion are so completely different to be laughable.

How am I going to give you vial of sodium ion?


I can give you a beam of it, if you want (you have to be careful when talking to people who might be a mass spectrometrist)


What you are saying is that elemental sodium and elemental chlorine will NOT form table salt on combination?

Of course they will, but then again, butadiene reacts with ethylene to give a substance that is neither butadiene nor ethylene. It has properties that are distinct from its reagents. Similarly, sodium and chlorine react to give a substance that contains neither atomic sodium nor atomic chlorine. Properties change when electrons move. The differences in the properties of Na and Na+ illustrate that clearly.

[DeviousB]

It's not a strawman unless I attribute the position to you. I did not.

What you actually said is, "It's just like irreducible complexity in biology: without proof that something is irreducible, the inability to reduce it should not be taken as a sign of anything more profound than our own inadequacy."

Sorry, that it is like irreducible complexity in biology is an unproven assertion on your part. Please demonstrate that this is so. Without such proof you have created a proposition that is simpler to refute instead of attacking the original argument. So it is either a strawman argument, if you are implying that your proposition is analagous to mine, or a meaningless digression, if you are not.

How good a model is depends upon what you demand of that model. That you can throw away details from the model and still have it work doesn't mean those details aren't critical to the real-world operation of the system [...]

You are confusing natural selection with the biology of the organism. Nowhere did I say that I was modelling biological organisms and selecting upon them. In fact most computer models of selection do no such thing, Dawkins, for example, had a population of letters evolve into the sentence "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL".

Natural selection requires (1) that a population of objects reproduce with a degree of inheritence, (2) that there is also a degree of variation between the parent and child object, and (3) that the variation affects the ability of the object to reproduce. That's it.

Inheritence, variation, fitness.

In biological organisms, the inheritence is provided by DNA, the variation by mutation, the fitness by (for argument's sake) differential survival. These are physical properties of the organism and can be potentially explained as physics (as I have already accepted).

They are, however, just postulates of natural selection (to use John Maynard-Smith's terminology). Other postulates in other systems will serve just as well. Natural selection reduces directly to mathematics, do not pass physics, do not collect 7 extra dimensions.

If you construct a model of the real world accurate enough to demonstrate NS, it will be because you have directly modelled the mathematics from which NS arises.

[Slimething]

Do you think the absorption bands of carbonyl chloride cannot be calculated?

I know they can. I asked you to do it.

You give me a good computer with code for EOM- or MR-CCSD(T) that I can extrapolate to an infinite basis set, and I'll be able to calculate the long wavelength absorption of carbonyl chloride.

You made the claim, pg. You arrange for your own tools. You are in a skeptic's forum so I'm calling you on your claim.

Can it be reduced to physics? Absolutely! Actually, I am surprised that you even bring this up, because it is such a trivial example of where physics _can_ be used to calculate "chemical" properties.

For it being so trivial, you are not doing very well. All I asked you to do was to back up your claim. You chose the easiest of the various challenges, completely disregarding the stereoisomerism question, and all I see is words. No physics, just words.

In terms of odor, yes, it is complicated. But it is doable, which is the question (show that the substrate will activate the same receptors as does those in freshly cut hay - that's an issue of structure and intermolecular forces, which are subject to physics principles)

All I asked you to do was to back up your claims, not give me a song and dance about how it would be possible if... You cannot do it. Fess up.

NOTE: You may now want to return to what I wrote and read it more carefully. What I wrote was that, if you use facile thinking and philosophically define physics as the science that defines atoms, then anything reduces down to physics. However, physics does not define atoms yet.


Oh, where to start...how about "total angular momentum of the wave function"? Sodium ion S = 0. Sodium atom: S = 1/2

How about "total electronic charge"? Sodium atom = 0, sodium ion = +1

Charge and angular momentum are basic physics concepts.

How about stability? Can physics tell me that Na is more reactive than Na+? Absolutely. Calculate the first and second ionization energies of Na, and they are extremely different (I mean, 40 eV different)

Man, the physics of elemental sodium and sodium ion are so completely different to be laughable.

I'm not laughing. This is getting rather tiresome. I know all this stuff. You told me you could explain the difference between the ion and the element. I see nothing here regarding the types of interactions that either form would have with anything else. You have to do better than this. Again, describe the differences in such relevant things as solubility, color, odor, toxicity, etc of both sodium ion and metallic sodium using only physics. Time's a-wasting.

I can give you a beam of it, if you want (you have to be careful when talking to people who might be a mass spectrometrist)

One of these days, you'll truly get to know just how much I enjoy smart ass answers.

Of course they will, but then again, butadiene reacts with ethylene to give a substance that is neither butadiene nor ethylene. It has properties that are distinct from its reagents. Similarly, sodium and chlorine react to give a substance that contains neither atomic sodium nor atomic chlorine. Properties change when electrons move. The differences in the properties of Na and Na+ illustrate that clearly.

The statement above could have been ripped out of any elementary chemistry book, pg. What happened to the physics you were so loudly proclaiming?

[DeviousB]

They are, however, just postulates of natural selection (to use John Maynard-Smith's terminology). Other postulates in other systems will serve just as well.

Okay, it looks like I've screwed up that sentence and the edit button has disappeared.

*Note to self: use the goddamn preview!*

[DeviousB]

And as others have pointed out, maths is completely different. Biology, chemistry and physics are all sciences that focus on different scales. Maths is the language that science speaks.

But it's not invariably the same math.

[Ziggurat]

You are confusing natural selection with the biology of the organism. Nowhere did I say that I was modelling biological organisms and selecting upon them. In fact most computer models of selection do no such thing, Dawkins, for example, had a population of letters evolve into the sentence "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL".

If you're not selecting biological organisms, then it isn't biology. It may provide insight into biology, but that is NOT the same thing. Yes, natural selection for letters forming a sentence doesn't depend upon physics. Same with the rules of sudoku. But neither of them is biology, or even a physical science.

Natural selection requires (1) that a population of objects reproduce with a degree of inheritence, (2) that there is also a degree of variation between the parent and child object, and (3) that the variation affects the ability of the object to reproduce. That's it.

Inheritence, variation, fitness.

And if you don't account for how those values arrise for a biological population, but merely assign them, then you are brushing the actual mechanics under the rug. That may work as a practical matter, but the fact that you don't NEED to reduce the system doesn't mean it cannot be reduced.

In biological organisms, the inheritence is provided by DNA, the variation by mutation, the fitness by (for argument's sake) differential survival. These are physical properties of the organism and can be potentially explained as physics (as I have already accepted).

They are, however, just postulates of natural selection (to use John Maynard-Smith's terminology). Other postulates in other systems will serve just as well. Natural selection reduces directly to mathematics, do not pass physics, do not collect 7 extra dimensions.

As I said, this is turning into a debate about what it means to be reducible. The model itself IS NOT REALITY. That you can make a successful model independent of physical details does not mean that the phenomenon is not reducible.

It is only irreducible if it is not possible, even in principle, to model the system based only upon the physical details. Slimething gets that. He understands that there must be some NEW physical process, which we do not currently know about or which CANNOT be modeled (even in principle), in order for complex systems to be irreducible. He thinks there are such processes, I think there are not, and there's no way to prove it either way. But the logic of that requirement is quite clear. The only way to maintain the concept of irreducibility outside of that is to do what you have essentially done: include non-physical sciences. Which is, well, kind of pointless.

[DeviousB]

There are no known phenomena in chemistry or biology which do not operate according to the laws of physics.

Natural Selection is certainly a phenomenon of biology, it is also non-physical (as I pointed out in my original post and you disputed).

The only way to maintain the concept of irreducibility outside of that is to do what you have essentially done: include non-physical sciences. Which is, well, kind of pointless.

So in essence you are saying that only physical phenomena are reducible to physics. Which, if it is not an actual 'bait-and-switch', is hardly a profound observation.

[Ziggurat]

So in essence you are saying that only physical phenomena are reducible to physics.

Well, yes. That's what I thought this thread was about: physical phenomena.

[DeviousB]

Well, yes. That's what I thought this thread was about: physical phenomena.

My mistake, I thought the topic included Biology and Chemistry.

[Ziggurat]

My mistake, I thought the topic included Biology and Chemistry.

You don't think biology and chemistry are studies of physical phenomena? If not, then perhaps you have a different definition of the term than I do.

[Earthborn]

I explained that physics 'comes' from mathematics, chemistry comes from physics and biology comes from chemistry.I think it is fair to say that biology is reducible to chemistry, chemistry is reducible to particle physics. That is to say, you can study these things at a smaller and smaller scale and you'll pass every all those sciences. But that of course ignores the fact that at larger scales emergent proporties arise that justify making it into different sciences. It will be very difficult to express a lion's hunting behaviour in purely chemical terms.

Physics encompasses all things, but chemistry is only reducible to a specific subset of physics: particle physics. The movements of the planets need not be considered.

The claim that physics comes from mathematics is silly, IMHO. Physicists use mathematics as a tool, but I don't think there is anyone of them who claims that physics is a subset of mathematics or that the laws of physics are somehow reducible to pure mathematical abstractions. They use mathematics for as far as it has real world applications, but mathematicians don't necessarily concern themselves with the real world (at least in their work).

[Ziggurat]

The claim that physics comes from mathematics is silly, IMHO. Physicists use mathematics as a tool, but I don't think there is anyone of them who claims that physics is a subset of mathematics or that the laws of physics are somehow reducible to pure mathematical abstractions.

I agree, though I approach it from a different angle. There's no limit to the number of possible mathematical models for universes, and the math can tell you whether or not these models are self-consistent. But that's not enough: the model must correspond in some way to reality in order to be physics, and the math alone can never tell you whether or not that's the case.

[DeviousB]

[Nevermind]
:rolleyes:

[Yllanes]

Perhaps an example can shed some light.

Consider nuclear physics. Atomic nuclei are made of nucleons (protons and neutrons), which themselves are made of quarks. We want to study the interaction between nucleons and instantly find that it is a very difficult problem. The force is not central, it depends on spin, isobaric spin, velocity, etc. We know this from experimental facts about two-nucleon systems. The problem is so difficult that we attemp a phenomenological explanation. We set some conditions

The interaction potential must be Poincaré invariant (remain the same after translations, rotations, etc.)
Invariant under parity transformations.
Invariant under time reversal.
Which we must reconcile with some empirical facts

The interaction depends on spin.
It also depends on isospin.
The force is not central
The force depends on velocity.
Charge symmetric and even charge independent (at least as a first approximation).
Repulsive at very short distances.
And we try to write an interaction potential, such as

\[V = V_1(r) + V_2(r)\ \vec\sigma_1\cdot\vec\sigma_2 + V_2(r)\ \vec \tau_1\cdot\vec \tau_2 + V_3 (r) (\vec\sigma_1\cdot\vec\sigma_2) (\vec \tau_1\cdot\vec \tau_2) + V_4(r) \vec L\cdot\vec S+ \ldots\]


With this potential we can study the interaction between nucleons (it typically has as much as 14 or 18 terms). We have not explicitly used the fact that the nucleons are made of quarks, or the SM description of the strong force. In this example of a very simple system (one proton and a neutron), we can use those facts to get some idea of the shape of the several V(r) terms, studying some equations from quantum field theory. For example, modelling the interaction with the exchange of a pion (a particle consisting of a quark and an antiquark with zero spin), we can arrive at a tensorial term that describes the interactions at 'long' distances pretty well ('long' is ~1.5·10-15 m).

For an iron, oxygen, or any other nucleus with more than two nucleons such a fundamental description is completely impossible. We have to use several semiempirical models, mean field approximations, etc. We certainly can't solve the Schrödinger equation for the system of protons and nucleons, much less use QFT to describe what all the quarks are doing. Yet nobody, I think, denies that the strong and EM interactions of the SM are ultimately what determines the dynamics of the system.

If we couldn't solve the Schödinger equation for a single atomic nucleus, we obviously can't do it for a chemical reaction or a whole ecosystem. To study those things we have to start somewhere else. But even if we have to start somewhere else in any human description of the system, the fundamental forces studied by physics are, practically by definition, all that's happening underneath.

Of course, should we eventually achieve an unified theory of the 4 interactions (the Theory of Everything...) we would not get any closer to explaining natural selection or how to make a good cheese. Some people think this fact makes the previous explanation meaningless and claim that because of it, physics cannot explain chemistry or biology, etc. My opinion is that physics can, by definition, explain them. But the problem is certainly beyond the reach of our human theories of physics. At which point the discussion turns into a semantic question and I couldn't care less.

[DeviousB]

The claim that physics comes from mathematics is silly, IMHO. Physicists use mathematics as a tool, but I don't think there is anyone of them who claims that physics is a subset of mathematics or that the laws of physics are somehow reducible to pure mathematical abstractions. They use mathematics for as far as it has real world applications, but mathematicians don't necessarily concern themselves with the real world (at least in their work).

Um, just a minute...

If it is NOT reducible, then that means that no matter how complex we make our physical simulation, it would not match reality. And that cannot happen unless there is some process going on which does NOT obey physics as we understand it, but actually violates it. While that might be possible (I can't prove that natural selection is reducible, and we cannot construct such massively complex models to test them against reality), there is no evidence that any such processes actually occur (ie, there's no reason to think it isn't reducible).

Surely, if similarly, if no part of physics does NOT obey the rules of mathematics or actually violates them, then physics is reducible to maths under your own definition?

[DeviousB]

I can't see it myself.

Physics is a tool frequently used by biologists, big deal. But Ziggurat seems to be arguing some sort of ontological reductionism I can't fathom.

As a (former) biologist, I used all sorts of math tools my physicist girlfriend had never heard of, and vice versa. Methodologically, biology can't reduce to physics because some of the theories and concepts of biology are mathematically distinct from the mathematical basis of physics.

Biological concepts such as Evolutionarily Stable Strategies, etc. which form an essential part of our understanding of large swathes of biology are based on game theory. To my knowledge no part of physics is. Physics can no more model an ESS than it can model chess.

[Ziggurat]

Surely, if similarly, if no part of physics does NOT obey the rules of mathematics or actually violates them, then physics is reducible to maths under your own definition?

No, it is not, because as I already stated math cannot distinguish WHICH self-consistent theories actually conform to reality. It's quite easy to come up with theories which do not, yet remain mathematically self-consistent. Mathematical self-consistency is believed to be a necessary requirement of any good physical theory, but it is most certainly NOT sufficient. There's only one way to determine which self-consistent model(s) correspond to reality: actual experimentation. And once you start doing actual experiments, you're no longer doing math, but science.

[Yllanes]

Surely, if similarly, if no part of physics does NOT obey the rules of mathematics or actually violates them, then physics is reducible to maths under your own definition?

Think of it this way: In mathematics we have several axioms, with which we build analysis, algebra, etc.

In physics, at the most fundamental level, you can start QFT by taking all of mathematics as given and adding several extra axioms that are not contained within mathematics. For example:

Microcausality.
Asymptotic completeness.
Eigenvalues of P lying on the closure of the future light cone.If you drop or change any of these axioms, you can make theories that are perfectly consistent form a mathematical point of view. If we drop the last one, we can have tachyons, particles going faster than light. It is possible to construct a QFT for free tachyons that works mathematically. But they are unphysical. From a different point of view: the elementary particles are irreducible representations of the Poincaré group. If we classify all the mathematically possible representations we find that some of them have imaginary mass or continuous spin. Mathematics by itself can say nothing of whether they exist or not. Experiments, observations are the only way of showing that they are unphysical.

On a different scenario. The mathematics of differential geometry describes gravitation. But we also need Einstein's equations, to show which is the precise relation between energy and geometry. Other equations are mathematically sound. Even starting from Einstein's equations, mathematics cannot tell the whole story. Assuming isotropy and homogeneity mathematics shows that there are only three possible shapes for the universe and that it can recollapse, be static or expand indefinitely. Physics is what determines which one of those possibilities is the real one, etc.

But in principle, a sufficiently sophisticated set of axioms for the fundamental theories of physics would describe anything at whatever scale. It will never be realised by humans, but there is no jump between physics and chemistry of the same nature as the one between mathematics and physics.

[Schneibster]

Just so we're all on the same page here, I own a book called Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids, "The Physics of the Chemical Bond." ISBN 0-486-66021-4, by Walter A. Harrison.

I think stating that we cannot derive the physical properties of substances from the physics of their atomic structures is basically disproven by the mere existence of this book. I'll point out that it is a textbook in the physical chemistry curriculum, which also tends to shoot down the assertion that physical chemistry isn't based on physics.

In case there are questions about what characteristics this is capable of predicting, it turns out that this book shows how spectra, hardness, melting point, elasticity, piezoelectricity, surface roughness, and specific heat can be derived from the electronic structure of the atoms that make up a solid. The author hints that we are near to being able to describe many other characteristics of materials, and near to being able to describe the characteristics of liquids as well. The second edition is copyright 1989- eighteen years ago. I suspect that a great deal has been found out since then.

So tell me again that chemistry isn't based on physics.

[Slimething]

So tell me again that chemistry isn't based on physics.

OK. Chemistry is not based on physics. Your move.

Just so we're all on the same page here, I own a book called Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids, "The Physics of the Chemical Bond." ISBN 0-486-66021-4, by Walter A. Harrison.

I think stating that we cannot derive the physical properties of substances from the physics of their atomic structures is basically disproven by the mere existence of this book.

Just like the existence of a Bermuda Triangle is confirmed by vonDanniken's (sp?) repertoire. But, let's presupposed that Harrison wrote a book about the physics of the chemical bond. Does that imply that there is more to a chemical bond than physics? Otherwise, the title would be "The Chemical Bond", no?

I'll point out that it is a textbook in the physical chemistry curriculum, which also tends to shoot down the assertion that physical chemistry isn't based on physics.

Un, no. It's called physical chemistry because the subject deals with the behavior of particles. It's not called physical chemistry because physicists were just too busy to teach the subject. Physical education and physical plants also have nothing to do with physics.

In case there are questions about what characteristics this is capable of predicting, it turns out that this book shows how spectra, hardness, melting point, elasticity, piezoelectricity, surface roughness, and specific heat can be derived from the electronic structure of the atoms that make up a solid.

Wow, hey, that's a lot of stuff! Does he give examples of is he merely postulating? I've seen and used the models that predict polarity, some types of spectra, and the like but I have not seen any so far that go anywhere near this far. Care to post a successfully modeled melting point from the book? Surface roughness would be a neat thing also as one can make most materials smooth or rough so I can't see that that characteristic could be predicted from the chemical bonding.

I've done a search to try and find a scientific review of the book but was unsuccessful. I did find quite a few articles that cited the book as a source but none of them had anything to do with modeling the physical characteristics of complex substances from the known physics of the bonding. But, hey, schneib, if the book makes those claims and they're true, you sure got a bargain for $17! That kinda stuff would normally cost thousands and earn the author a Nobel. No kiddin!

I suspect that a great deal has been found out since then.

You've seen my challenges to pgwethold. Why don't you do them?

[Schneibster]

Just like the existence of a Bermuda Triangle is confirmed by vonDanniken's (sp?) repertoire. That you compare anything by that idiot with a textbook says everything about you that I care to know: you are no friend of the truth.

[Schneibster]

Just so we don't have to listen to any more of this horsepucky.
But, let's presupposed that Harrison wrote a book about the physics of the chemical bond. He didn't. You can tell that from the title.

Does that imply that there is more to a chemical bond than physics? What "more" do you suppose there would be? Little fairies that hold the little atomies together? Perhaps you think there's micro-glue holding them together. Or maybe you think von Daniken is doing it.

Otherwise, the title would be "The Chemical Bond", no?Maybe if it was a book about chemical bonds. Which, given the title, it obviously isn't.

Un, no. It's called physical chemistry because the subject deals with the behavior of particles. Whaaaaaaaaat? Are you actually this dumb, or is this some sort of joke?

It's not called physical chemistry because physicists were just too busy to teach the subject. I don't even know what this means, and I'm growing more and more certain you don't either.

Physical education and physical plants also have nothing to do with physics.And this is relevant because...?

Wow, hey, that's a lot of stuff! Does he give examples of is he merely postulating? Why don't you read it and find out. It's a textbook. You might be able to learn something, if you can put down the bong long enough.

I've seen and used the models that predict polarity, some types of spectra, and the like but I have not seen any so far that go anywhere near this far. That would be because you had an acid trip and THOUGHT you were a real chemist?

Care to post a successfully modeled melting point from the book? How about a whole table of them? It's the appendix, and it's called the Solid State Table of the Elements.

Surface roughness would be a neat thing also as one can make most materials smooth or rough so I can't see that that characteristic could be predicted from the chemical bonding.You don't know very much about solid-state physics, do you? Of course, you don't know very much about chemistry, either, so I guess that's no surprise.

I've done a search to try and find a scientific review of the book but was unsuccessful. It's on the physics 601/602 book list (http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~dhv/602/books.html) at Rutgers. You might also want to have a look at the course materials for the Methods of Electronic Structure Theory in Materials Science (http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~nicola/etheory.html) class at the Materials Research Laboratory at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the citations in some pretty recent papers in Physical Review Letters and so forth. Then there's Purdue University's course Nanomaterials Chemistry and Engineering, Chem 697M, which also has it on the book list (http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~che697m/syllabus.htm). Overall, in the first two pages of hits from google, I found eight college courses and five citations in the peer-reviewed literature.

Either you're really lousy at using google, or you're high on gasoline. Or perhaps, as I originally suggested, you're no friend of the truth.

I did find quite a few articles that cited the book as a source but none of them had anything to do with modeling the physical characteristics of complex substances from the known physics of the bonding. What "known physics of the bonding?" Having a little trouble with the whole reading comprehension thing there, sport? Looks that way. Because whatever you're talkin about, it has pretty much zip to do with this conversation.

But, hey, schneib, if the book makes those claims and they're true, you sure got a bargain for $17! That kinda stuff would normally cost thousands and earn the author a Nobel. No kiddin!Listen, put the bong down and pay attention. You're talking about a book that's being used in current curriculum university physics and chemistry classes, get it?

You've seen my challenges to pgwethold. Why don't you do them?No, actually I hadn't- I don't generally pay you much attention, the kind of crap you posted here is pretty much of the same type as most of the drivel you post, and I don't bother reading it much. It's not really worthwhile, and to top it all off, you'll do ANYTHING, including lie, to "prove you're right." It doesn't prove anything but that you're stupid enough to think that no one will catch you at it.

[Slimething]

That you compare anything by that idiot with a textbook says everything about you that I care to know: you are no friend of the truth.

I wasn't comparing them, mr. brilliant. I was skewering your illogic: a published book = scientific fact. New one on me.

Supposed I sent you a science textbook from the Middle Ages? Would the stuff in there be fact?

BTW shneib, you put me on your ignore list, remember? Why am I so blessed with your wisdom again? I can find paranoiacs in the alleyways so there really was no need.

[Slimething]

I know I'm corresponding with someone who's compromised but some of these "comebacks" are so delicious, I couldn't resist.

What "more" do you suppose there would be? Little fairies that hold the little atomies together? Perhaps you think there's micro-glue holding them together. Or maybe you think von Daniken is doing it.

Perhaps you should read that book you bought. Science is a very precise language. Pay attention to detail. Also, answer my questions and I'll answer yours. I don't give out free educations.

Maybe if it was a book about chemical bonds. Which, given the title, it obviously isn't.

Given the title of the book, it most certainly is about chemical bonds. Do you read much?

I don't even know what this means, and I'm growing more and more certain you don't either.

Apparently, there's much that fits in the category of "shneib doesn't know what this means". BTW, I wrote it. Of course, I know what it means. Maybe you should read it more slowly or have someone read it to you.

And this is relevant because...?

Because you seem to make the idiotic assumption that anything with the word "physical' in it is related directly to physics. You need a physician.

Why don't you read it and find out. It's a textbook. You might be able to learn something, if you can put down the bong long enough.

You're the one making the claim, boyo. I don't have to do anything. I've already done it. Chemistry is my field as sophistry is yours. I know what I'm talking about. I earn my money in chemistry. You?

That would be because you had an acid trip and THOUGHT you were a real chemist?

LOL! If I'm not, I do a damned good impersonation!

BTW, do you think that this type of response will somehow fool other readers into ignoring the fact that you're not backing up any of your claims? This is a skeptical forum. Most of the people here are not fools, schneib. You may be able to yell down people at school but it doesn't work here.

How about a whole table of them? It's the appendix, and it's called the Solid State Table of the Elements.

So, this brilliant author who claims to be able to predict all these characteristics from the scant data we have on molecular bonds does not work out any examples in the text? Either you got gypped or you did not understand what he wrote. My money is on that the values in the appendix are empirically derived.

You don't know very much about solid-state physics, do you? Of course, you don't know very much about chemistry, either, so I guess that's no surprise.

I'm a chemist. I don't know much about solid-state physics. That's not what this thread is about, anyway. Let me remind you. You made the broad claim that chemistry is derived from physics. You also made the special claim that, given what physics knows about the nature of atoms and bonding, that physics could predict a wide variety of physical characteristics of compounds. So, what of it? Where's the evidence?

Don't put yourself down, shneib. Anyone reading this thread will recognize that I know a heck of a lot more about chemistry than you do. So, if you want to tell me I don't know much, it's obvious you know even less. In any case, you're right. I don't know nearly as much about chemistry as I want to know. You seem to know now all you ever will about the subject.

It's on the physics 601/602 book list (http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~dhv/602/books.html) at Rutgers. You might also want to have a look at the course materials for the Methods of Electronic Structure Theory in Materials Science (http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~nicola/etheory.html) class at the Materials Research Laboratory at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the citations in some pretty recent papers in Physical Review Letters and so forth. Then there's Purdue University's course Nanomaterials Chemistry and Engineering, Chem 697M, which also has it on the book list (http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~che697m/syllabus.htm). Overall, in the first two pages of hits from google, I found eight college courses and five citations in the peer-reviewed literature.

Good. That means it's probably a good book. Don't you wish you could read with comprehension?

What "known physics of the bonding?" Having a little trouble with the whole reading comprehension thing there, sport? Looks that way. Because whatever you're talkin about, it has pretty much zip to do with this conversation.

You're right. Leave the last "the" out and the sentence gains the elegance that would befit a stalwart scholar like you. Now, why don't you address the point instead of giving me a bunch of hoo-ha that only demonstrates your immaturity?

Listen, put the bong down and pay attention. You're talking about a book that's being used in current curriculum university physics and chemistry classes, get it?

No disrespect meant to the book, schneib. My point was that you misunderstood what the author wrote. I don't believe the author wrote what you claim he wrote. I'm being kind: I could presume that you are lying.

No, actually I hadn't- I don't generally pay you much attention, the kind of crap you posted here is pretty much of the same type as most of the drivel you post, and I don't bother reading it much. It's not really worthwhile, and to top it all off, you'll do ANYTHING, including lie, to "prove you're right." It doesn't prove anything but that you're stupid enough to think that no one will catch you at it.

Oh, dear, there's that accusation again. I had a fundie imbecile in a different thread also call me a liar but he refused all calls to point out the lie. Such is the way of idiots. You're not an idiot, are you, shneib? If you're going to call me a liar, the least you could do is to quote my lie. Then, I could get in on the fun, too.

Really, scheib, the one who's more likely lying is you. You won't answer any of my points but I will point out to you that you claimed to have put me on your ignore list way back when. I'm flattered that you're reading anything I write but that still doesn't hide the inconsistency.

Like I told you before, schneib, you need to get medical attention for your anger problem. It's not normal for you to get so damned hepped up on this discussion that you would resort to insults and slander instead of posting evidence that proves me wrong. Now, put me back on your ignore list. Ignore is something you seem to be very good at.

[Schneibster]

I wasn't comparing them, mr. brilliant. I was skewering your illogic: a published book = scientific fact. New one on me.I bet. Books seem in general to be a "new one on you."

Supposed I sent you a science textbook from the Middle Ages? Would the stuff in there be fact?"Science textbook from the Middle Ages?" What on Earth are you talking about? First, I'm pretty sure they didn't have textbooks in the Middle Ages. Second, I'm pretty sure they didn't even have Science in the Middle Ages. So basically, what you've just said is completely meaningless- which is no particular change from anything else you've said so far.

BTW shneib, you put me on your ignore list, remember? Why am I so blessed with your wisdom again? I can find paranoiacs in the alleyways so there really was no need.Someone decided you might actually be saying something worthwhile, and I wanted to help them overcome their delusion.

[Schneibster]

I know I'm corresponding with someone who's compromised but some of these "comebacks" are so delicious, I couldn't resist.You probably should have. I'm about to make you look like even more of an idiot than you already do- which, by the way, is a pretty difficult task. But I'm up for it. :D

Perhaps you should read that book you bought. Science is a very precise language. Pay attention to detail. Also, answer my questions and I'll answer yours. I don't give out free educations.Ask some that have something to do with reality and I'll think about it. So far, none of them have.

Given the title of the book, it most certainly is about chemical bonds. Do you read much?Hmm. Let's check this out.

Electronic? Nope. No bonds there.
How about Structure? Nope. Not a bond in sight.
Hmmm, "and the?" Nope. Still no bonds.
OK, how about "Properties?" Nope. Bonds seem remarkably thin on the ground here.
What about "of?" Nope. STILL no bonds to be found.
Here comes the last one: "Solids." Nope. And that's all she wrote.

Overall, I'd say you had a brain fart. I see nothing in the title that has anything to do with bonds.

Apparently, there's much that fits in the category of "shneib doesn't know what this means". BTW, I wrote it. Of course, I know what it means. Maybe you should read it more slowly or have someone read it to you.Oh, well, do tell us.

Oops. Guess you forgot. Never mind, take another hit, big guy.

Because you seem to make the idiotic assumption that anything with the word "physical' in it is related directly to physics. You need a physician.Hmmm, well, I know how we can take care of this: we'll consult a dictionary! Uh oh, look out, that's another of those "book" things you have so much trouble with. But at least everybody else will know what's going on. Let's try that, shall we?

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about Physical chemistry: "Physical chemistry is the application of physics to macroscopic, microscopic, atomic and particulate phenomena in chemical systems[1]within the field of chemistry traditionally using the principles, practices and concepts of thermodynamics, quantum chemistry, statistical mechanics and kinetics."

Oops. I think I see "application of physics" in there. Well, maybe Wikipedia is wrong. Let's try another one. How about the Biochemistry Division of Northwestern University's definition of physical chemistry? (http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-P/physical_chemistry.html) "'The physics of chemistry' A branch of chemistry which is interested in things such as, how much pressure would have to be placed on a solid to convert it to a liquid."

Oooooh. That's gotta hurt. You want some ice to put on it?

Maybe we can dig you out of this hole. What's the American Heritage dictionary say? No help there: "Scientific analysis of the properties and behavior of chemical systems primarily by physical theory and technique, as, for example, the thermodynamic analysis of macroscopic chemical phenomena." Physical theory. Yep, that'd be physics. Not to mention thermodynamics. Of course, with that little problem you have, you probably think thermodynamics is a branch of, I dunno, music theory or something, but hey, that's OK, just take another hit and it'll all be fine.

Maybe McGraw Hill will be better? Not a chance. "The branch of chemistry that deals with the interpretation of chemical phenomena and properties in terms of the underlying physical processes, and with the development of techniques for their investigation. The term chemical physics is often employed to denote a branch of physical chemistry where the emphasis is on the interpretation and analysis of the physical properties of individual molecules and bulk systems, instead of their reactions. Theoretical chemistry is another major branch, where the emphasis is on the calculation of the properties of molecules and systems, and which used the techniques of quantum mechanics and statistical thermodynamics. It is convenient to regard physical chemistry as dealing with three aspects of matter: its equilibrium properties, structure, and ability to change."

Oooh, quantum mechanics. Dude, you're sunk. That's REAL physics.

You're the one making the claim, boyo. I don't have to do anything. I've already done it. No, all you've done is make a bunch of claims that have turned out not to be true. Every one of them so far that has been verifiable has plain, flat failed. On the other hand, every one I've made so far has turned out to be solid. I suppose you're going to claim that Rutgers and Northwestern and Purdue and UCSB's Mat Lab have no idea what they're talking about.

If you want to know my opinion, I think you're playing Ludwig Plutonium and doing a very bad job of it.

Chemistry is my field as sophistry is yours. I know what I'm talking about. I earn my money in chemistry. You? Basically, this appears to be nothing but a lie. I'm assuming you wash test tubes or something. Maybe you work in the cafeteria at DuPont.

LOL! If I'm not, I do a damned good impersonation!Or perhaps not so good. Looking pretty bad just about now; all I see is claims, no substance behind them.

BTW, do you think that this type of response will somehow fool other readers into ignoring the fact that you're not backing up any of your claims? So, Rutgers University, Northwestern University, UC Santa Barbara's Materials Lab, the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and Wikipedia constitute "not backing up my claims?"

Meanwhile, you've got Erik von Daniken.

Like I said, Ludwig Plutonium.

This is a skeptical forum. Congratulations! Not only is this the first thing you've said that actually approached reality, but

:wave1
YOU NOTICED!!!!
:bigclap

Most of the people here are not fools, schneib. No, but you sure are.

You may be able to yell down people at school but it doesn't work here.Wait a minute... this looks like you've slipped and made an assumption about me because it's true about YOU. Oh, my. A college kid who thinks he's ready to play in the bigs.

Don't hang any curveballs, kid... Oh, wait, guess it's a bit late for that.

Son, I been out of school pretty obviously longer than you been ALIVE. I prolly have hairs growing on my butt that are older than you are. So when you rile me up, I tend to make a show out of it- 'cause, see, the kind of tactics you use, they're kiddie stuff, and I don't think anyone who uses them deserves any mercy at all. Whatever you were figuring to do with this persona, I'd forget it, because I'm telling you, there ain't a soul on this board gonna listen to a single thing you got to say after this, unless they're as screwed up as you are.

It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains that you wouldn't know a chemistry if it bit you on the a$$. If you did, you'd be trottin it out right now. You got nothin. You been lyin, and you're caught but good. It was me, I'd pull that zipper DOWN 'stead of UP, but hey, it's not MY schlong caught up in it.

So, this brilliant author who claims to be able to predict all these characteristics from the scant data we have on molecular bonds"Scant data we have on molecular bonds?" What the hell you been readin, son? This (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v45/i19/p11299_1) was published in 1992. It's the first google hit for "molecular bond strength table." It refers to another method of calculating the same thing. So there's at least two ways to do it. The second hit yields a page from the Chemistry Department web site of Michigan State University (http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/react2.htm) that has a table in it; search the page for "bond energy." In the blurb above the table, they say: "Tables of bond energies may be found in most text books and handbooks."

So much for the "scant" data on the super-mysterious sekrit molecular bonds.

This stuff is comedy GOLD, man. Where do you come up with it?

does not work out any examples in the text? Why should I bother to show them to YOU? You haven't demonstrated a lick of knowledge on the subject so far, and from what you HAVE said I have every reason to believe that you'd just dismiss them because you don't understand them, or else lie about it some more.

For your information, he provides templates you can program into a scientific calculator to give expected physical properties of solids, and the table I spoke of organizes the key constants you have to change for each different element. I'd guess, though, that I lost you at "templates," or perhaps "calculator." Those long words, you know.

By the way, you ARE aware that Walter Harrison was a Professor of Applied Physics at Stanford University from 1965 to 1989, and from then until 1993, when he retired, was the Department Chair, right? And that he's currently a Professor Emeritus on the Stanford Applied Physics Faculty, correct? And that he has published over fifty articles in the field, correct? You DID look up his CV, didn't you? Or do you even know what a CV is?

And you DID know that he wrote THE textbook on solid matter physics, right?

Say, how'd you get a mousetrap stuck THERE????!!???

Either you got gypped or you did not understand what he wrote. My money is on that the values in the appendix are empirically derived.Ummmm, that would be because the bonding energies are all still super-mysterious and nobody knows anything about them, right?

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

I'm a chemist. Ha. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

I don't know much about solid-state physics. Nor about universities, nor about physics of ANY kind, nor about chemistry either, as far as I can tell; you don't even know enough to go look up a professor's CV, and look for him on his students' CVs, to see how many good ones he's grown.

It looks like you're a person who read a chemistry book from the 1950s or so once about five years ago to me. And didn't understand more than about 30% of it, at that.

That's not what this thread is about, anyway. Or anyway, you'd rather not talk about it any more, like get challenged to provide some kind of proof that you actually know what you're talking about.

Let me remind you. You made the broad claim that chemistry is derived from physics. You also made the special claim that, given what physics knows about the nature of atoms and bonding, that physics could predict a wide variety of physical characteristics of compounds. So, what of it? Where's the evidence?Ummmmm, in the book by the Stanford University PhD Professor of Applied Physics who appears on the CVs of at least eight published scientists in physics and chemistry, the book that appears on the curricula of Northwestern University, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Purdue University, the book that is referenced as a source in literally scores of major scientific papers in physics, chemistry, materials science, and nanotechnology, that you claim is equivalent to Chariots of the Gods. That do ya?

Hmmm. I'd say that's one for me. You're lookin' a little red, there, sport. I'd get outta the sunlight I was you.

Don't put yourself down, shneib. Anyone reading this thread will recognize that I know a heck of a lot more about chemistry than you do. Oh, really? And, that would be, perhaps, because you've provided SO MANY SOURCES TO BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY? Well, maybe not. Maybe then, it would be because YOU'VE SAID SO MANY DEEP TECHNICAL THINGS ABOUT CHEMISTRY? Hmmm, well, that one doesn't work either, does it? Gee, so remind me here, why precisely was that, again? See, as far as I can tell, you know absolutely not one single thing about chemistry.

So, if you want to tell me I don't know much, it's obvious you know even less. And that would be because I didn't discuss technical points about chemistry? Well, no, I guess that's wrong. Hmmm, then I didn't provide links to citations that proved what I said? Errrmmm, well, no, that one doesn't work either. I think you've got another one of those little "credibility gap" problems here.

You're right. Leave the last "the" out and the sentence gains the elegance that would befit a stalwart scholar like you. Now, why don't you address the point instead of giving me a bunch of hoo-ha that only demonstrates your immaturity?Because you're so full of crap your eyes are brown. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. You never did. From the evidence here, you never will.

No disrespect meant to the book, schneib. My point was that you misunderstood what the author wrote. I don't believe the author wrote what you claim he wrote. I'm being kind: I could presume that you are lying.:id:

Look, you haven't a clue what the TITLE means, sport. You're claiming it's about bonding. Don't you think you'd better maybe take a step back before you make yourself look any stupider?

Oh, dear, there's that accusation again. I had a fundie imbecile in a different thread also call me a liar but he refused all calls to point out the lie. Heh, well, I guess we don't have that problem here, DO WE???

Such is the way of idiots. You're not an idiot, are you, shneib? If you're going to call me a liar, the least you could do is to quote my lie. Then, I could get in on the fun, too.I see no need to provide anything that I haven't already. I think it's all clear, obvious, no questions required.

Really, scheib, the one who's more likely lying is you. And that would be... because I provided LINKS TO PROVE EVERYTHING I SAID? Hmmm, well, no, that's not right, is it? So, where does this whole "likely" thing come from? Is that like the "bonding" thing above?

You won't answer any of my points but I will point out to you that you claimed to have put me on your ignore list way back when. I'm flattered that you're reading anything I write but that still doesn't hide the inconsistency.Like I said, someone thought you had a brain. I'm fixing that gross misapprehension.

Like I told you before, schneib, you need to get medical attention for your anger problem. It's not normal for you to get so damned hepped up on this discussion that you would resort to insults and slander instead of posting evidence that proves me wrong. Now, put me back on your ignore list. Ignore is something you seem to be very good at.Sure, whatever. I'd say you're pretty much through here.

[Schneibster]

You get one shot. Use it wisely.

[Cuddles]

This has to be the most bizzare argument I've ever seen. And I've been to the conspiracy sub-forum.

Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything.

[DeviousB]

No, it is not, because as I already stated math cannot distinguish WHICH self-consistent theories actually conform to reality. It's quite easy to come up with theories which do not, yet remain mathematically self-consistent. Mathematical self-consistency is believed to be a necessary requirement of any good physical theory, but it is most certainly NOT sufficient. There's only one way to determine which self-consistent model(s) correspond to reality: actual experimentation. And once you start doing actual experiments, you're no longer doing math, but science.

But then, physics can almost certainly come up with a myriad possible, feasible schemes for life, and can no more determine which corresponds to reality than maths can decide between multiple consistent physica.

As you said yourself...

If you could model the entire physics of an ecosystem (something we cannot do and quite possibly never will be able to do for purely practical reasons), I expect we would indeed find that it behaves according to natural selection, WITHOUT putting natural selection into the model explicitly. [...] If it is NOT reducible, then that means that no matter how complex we make our physical simulation, it would not match reality. And that cannot happen unless there is some process going on which does NOT obey physics as we understand it, but actually violates it.

If you could model the whole universe mathematically (something we will undoubtedly never be able to practically achieve), I equally expect it will produce all physical phenomena. Unless some part of physics CANNOT be expressed as mathematics, however complex, physics is just as reducible to mathematics.

[Yllanes]

But then, physics can almost certainly come up with a myriad possible, feasible schemes for life, and can no more determine which corresponds to reality than maths can decide between multiple consistent physica.

It's not the same thing. To get from mathematics to natural sciences you need observations. There is a clear qualitative jump there. To get from one particular part of science to another you just need a different experiment, but you don't have the same discontinuity.

To put it another way. It is true that physics could 'come up with a myriad possible, feasible schemes for life'. But physics can also come up with a 'myriad possible, feasible schemes' for... physics.

As I said before, Einstein's equations for GR are not just mathematics, we accept them because it was found that they described reality. But even accepting Eintein's equations and thermodynamics, etc. we cannot determine whether our universe is infinite or not, both possibilities are perfectly consistent. Physics has come up here with several 'possible, feasible' schemes for cosmology. Further observations can determine which one (if any) is correct. Yet nobody says that cosmology is not physics because it is not completely determined by Einstein's equations alone, without more observations.

In just the same way a hypothetical physical theory for life could come up with several possibilities. Observations would determine which one was correct. There is no difference between that scenario (that admittedly will never happen in practice) and the former example about cosmology.

[Ziggurat]

But then, physics can almost certainly come up with a myriad possible, feasible schemes for life, and can no more determine which corresponds to reality than maths can decide between multiple consistent physica.

That's not how it works. Physics, just like every other science, is predictive, but it's predictive only when you give it an initial state.

If you could model the whole universe mathematically (something we will undoubtedly never be able to practically achieve), I equally expect it will produce all physical phenomena. Unless some part of physics CANNOT be expressed as mathematics, however complex, physics is just as reducible to mathematics.

Again, you're trying to play semantic games, which are quite uninteresting. Not, it's NOT reducible to math. Math is just the language, it does not provide the content. Given an initial state, WHICH of the infinity of possible equations should you use to describe its evolution? Math cannot tell you. You MUST rely upon physical principles, which can ONLY be derived by actual experimentation. Which means you're doing physics. So once again, you CANNOT reduce it to math the way you can reduce chemistry to physics. You're really grasping at straws here.

[Slimething]

I bet. Books seem in general to be a "new one on you."

(Sigh) Is this the best you can do? Intentional misinterpretation of what I write seems to be your MO. It's not witty or funny but transparent and tiresome.

"Science textbook from the Middle Ages?" What on Earth are you talking about? First, I'm pretty sure they didn't have textbooks in the Middle Ages. Second, I'm pretty sure they didn't even have Science in the Middle Ages. So basically, what you've just said is completely meaningless- which is no particular change from anything else you've said so far.

It was a hypothetical. Let me give you a more concrete case since you have limited imagination. Suppose I gave you a chemistry or physics textbook written before the Bohr atom was accepted. Would you wave that in my face when I wrote that each little atomie (sorry, had to use it) has little, invisible shelves of different energies where it stores its electrons and spectral lines are caused by the electrons jumping from one little shelf to another?

Someone decided you might actually be saying something worthwhile, and I wanted to help them overcome their delusion.

People actually go to you for scientific counsel? :jaw-dropp Fascinating.

So, let me get this straight. Someone who can't think for themselves whom I've stumped comes and gets you, the grand science poobah of the JREF Forum. Then you arrive, call me names, declare yourself the winner and (with any luck) leave? All the while you haven't even obliquely addressed the question that originally stumped them? Yes, sometimes life is stranger than fiction. You should be in the ministry.

[Schneibster]

Well, that takes care of that- obvious woo.

[Slimething]

Nice ad hominem, schneib. From the looks of it you spent a lot of time and effort on it. Better than kicking the dog, I guess. I'm going to address your rant but I'm going to leave out nearly all the ad hominem stuff to preserve bandwidth.

Let's start by looking at one of your recent posts in its entirety so you will be less likely to say I'm lying about what you wrote:

Just so we're all on the same page here, I own a book called Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids, "The Physics of the Chemical Bond." ISBN 0-486-66021-4, by Walter A. Harrison.

I think stating that we cannot derive the physical properties of substances from the physics of their atomic structures is basically disproven by the mere existence of this book. I'll point out that it is a textbook in the physical chemistry curriculum, which also tends to shoot down the assertion that physical chemistry isn't based on physics.

In case there are questions about what characteristics this is capable of predicting, it turns out that this book shows how spectra, hardness, melting point, elasticity, piezoelectricity, surface roughness, and specific heat can be derived from the electronic structure of the atoms that make up a solid. The author hints that we are near to being able to describe many other characteristics of materials, and near to being able to describe the characteristics of liquids as well. The second edition is copyright 1989- eighteen years ago. I suspect that a great deal has been found out since then.

So tell me again that chemistry isn't based on physics.

Now let's get to it:

Hmm. Let's check this out.

Electronic? Nope. No bonds there.
How about Structure? Nope. Not a bond in sight.
Hmmm, "and the?" Nope. Still no bonds.
OK, how about "Properties?" Nope. Bonds seem remarkably thin on the ground here.
What about "of?" Nope. STILL no bonds to be found.
Here comes the last one: "Solids." Nope. And that's all she wrote.

Overall, I'd say you had a brain fart. I see nothing in the title that has anything to do with bonds.

Did I catch you at something, schneib? Your original post above includes the subtitle to the book ("The Physics of the Chemical Bond") which you have intentionally forgotten to consider. You have it in quotation marks after the main title. You're not going to accuse me of inserting that in there while you weren't looking, are you? It's easy enough for a reader to go up the thread to your post to verify that this is the case.

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about Physical chemistry: "Physical chemistry is the application of physics to macroscopic, microscopic, atomic and particulate phenomena in chemical systems[1]within the field of chemistry traditionally using the principles, practices and concepts of thermodynamics, quantum chemistry, statistical mechanics and kinetics."

Oops. I think I see "application of physics" in there. Well, maybe Wikipedia is wrong. Let's try another one. How about the Biochemistry Division of Northwestern University's definition of physical chemistry? (http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-P/physical_chemistry.html) "'The physics of chemistry' A branch of chemistry which is interested in things such as, how much pressure would have to be placed on a solid to convert it to a liquid."

Oooooh. That's gotta hurt. You want some ice to put on it?

Maybe we can dig you out of this hole. What's the American Heritage dictionary say? No help there: "Scientific analysis of the properties and behavior of chemical systems primarily by physical theory and technique, as, for example, the thermodynamic analysis of macroscopic chemical phenomena." Physical theory. Yep, that'd be physics. Not to mention thermodynamics.

Maybe McGraw Hill will be better? Not a chance. "The branch of chemistry that deals with the interpretation of chemical phenomena and properties in terms of the underlying physical processes, and with the development of techniques for their investigation. The term chemical physics is often employed to denote a branch of physical chemistry where the emphasis is on the interpretation and analysis of the physical properties of individual molecules and bulk systems, instead of their reactions. Theoretical chemistry is another major branch, where the emphasis is on the calculation of the properties of molecules and systems, and which used the techniques of quantum mechanics and statistical thermodynamics. It is convenient to regard physical chemistry as dealing with three aspects of matter: its equilibrium properties, structure, and ability to change."

I so relish it when the opposing side works so hard at discrediting itself! Let's look at your earlier claim:

I'll point out that it is a textbook in the physical chemistry curriculum, which also tends to shoot down the assertion that physical chemistry isn't based on physics.

See the difference yet? I warned you that technical writing was very precise! The application of physics to a phenomenon does not make the results physics. Subtle, but it's there. If we all accept your "victory", one would think that I had posted a statement that held that chemistry, in whole or in part, deviated from physics. If I did, find it. I posted yours.

No, all you've done is make a bunch of claims that have turned out not to be true. Every one of them so far that has been verifiable has plain, flat failed.

Please refresh my memory and cite what claims I've made and how they have fallen flat. Remember, how stupid I am, OK?

On the other hand, every one I've made so far has turned out to be solid.

No. You claimed that chemistry is based on physics. (Don't deny it. It's all in black on gray at the start of this post.) You have not addressed that. You have also not even attempted to set aside the challenges I put to pgwenthold, also earlier in this thread for all to see. All you've tried to do is derail the discussion with the definition of physical chemistry and call me names.

Basically, this appears to be nothing but a lie. I'm assuming you wash test tubes or something. Maybe you work in the cafeteria at DuPont.

In technical jargon, this is called a calumny. You have no evidence to contradict the statement that I am a chemist but you accuse me of lying about it. Suppose I wasn't. So what? Suppose I was a dishwasher at duPont dreaming of a lab job and I posted my challenges to your claims. Would that make a real difference? No. You've not set aside the challenges. So, having trouble with a dishwasher's questions is what you want everyone to come away with from this exchange?

Wait a minute... this looks like you've slipped and made an assumption about me because it's true about YOU. Oh, my. A college kid who thinks he's ready to play in the bigs.

My bad. I mistook your age from your writing style and the content of your argument. People generally get wiser as they age so I'm afraid I misjudged you. I apologize.

Son, I been out of school pretty obviously longer than you been ALIVE. I prolly have hairs growing on my butt that are older than you are. So when you rile me up, I tend to make a show out of it- 'cause, see, the kind of tactics you use, they're kiddie stuff, and I don't think anyone who uses them deserves any mercy at all. Whatever you were figuring to do with this persona, I'd forget it, because I'm telling you, there ain't a soul on this board gonna listen to a single thing you got to say after this, unless they're as screwed up as you are.

Oh, goodness, I am so burned! How will I live? How can I face the JREF Forum after this? :rolleyes:

If you are indeed out of school longer than I've been alive, you are truly old but that doesn't matter. This is a forum for the discussion of ideas, not putting each other down. Answer my questions that I may be the wiser, O schneib.

"Scant data we have on molecular bonds?" What the hell you been readin, son? This (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v45/i19/p11299_1) was published in 1992. It's the first google hit for "molecular bond strength table." It refers to another method of calculating the same thing. So there's at least two ways to do it. The second hit yields a page from the Chemistry Department web site of Michigan State University (http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/react2.htm) that has a table in it; search the page for "bond energy." In the blurb above the table, they say: "Tables of bond energies may be found in most text books and handbooks."

So much for the "scant" data on the super-mysterious sekrit molecular bonds.

Yes, scant in the sense that we don't really know as much as we need to know about the electronic character surrounding either atoms or molecules. There's still a lot to learn, as most other posters on this thread recognize but you don't. Every year, millions are spent on bond research. The most common pursuit is the investigaton of organometallic complexes but, hey, what does a dishwasher know?

Why should I bother to show them to YOU?

Umm, because I challenged you and I don't believe they exist? Is that a good enough reason?

Y'know, you should really think things through before you post. That claim that one can calculate the surface roughness from chemical bond data is like saying you can tell a car's color from it's engine. That's when I started smelling a rat.

For your information, he provides templates you can program into a scientific calculator to give expected physical properties of solids, and the table I spoke of organizes the key constants you have to change for each different element.

Sounds like empiricism to me. Kinda like Hansch analysis, y'know. BTW, why does that work? Look it up in your physics book! I'm just a dishwasher.

By the way, you ARE aware that Walter Harrison was a Professor of Applied Physics at Stanford University from 1965 to 1989, and from then until 1993, when he retired, was the Department Chair, right? And that he's currently a Professor Emeritus on the Stanford Applied Physics Faculty, correct? And that he has published over fifty articles in the field, correct? You DID look up his CV, didn't you? Or do you even know what a CV is?

And you DID know that he wrote THE textbook on solid matter physics, right?

I see you're not above appealing to authority. Another discredited argumentation ploy used by lackwits.

And that would be because I didn't discuss technical points about chemistry? Well, no, I guess that's wrong. Hmmm, then I didn't provide links to citations that proved what I said? Errrmmm, well, no, that one doesn't work either.

Could you kindly direct my attention to where you've answered the questions I asked? At best, you've only answered the questions you asked.

Look, you haven't a clue what the TITLE means, sport. You're claiming it's about bonding. Don't you think you'd better maybe take a step back before you make yourself look any stupider?

Addressed at the begining of this post. Check up there. Methinks you're the one who's looking a bit red at the moment, schneib.

And that would be... because I provided LINKS TO PROVE EVERYTHING I SAID?

Please direct me to the link that proves that chemistry is based on physics. I would like to forward it to the chemistry department at my old school demanding my money back because they misled me about fictitious people like Gay-Loussac, Kekule, Dalton, and others. The sheer collossal nerve of those people. No wonder I only became a dishwasher!

So, are you going to address my questions or are you only good at calling people names and falsifying book titles?

[Slimething]

You get one shot. Use it wisely.

I'll pass. Buh-bye! :cheerleader5

[Oldpossum]

Chirality, is an emergent property of Physical Chemistry, that CANNOT be derived from physics. This conclusivly proves that Physical Chemistry, cannot be reduced into terms of the undepinning physics.

[Schneibster]

Chirality, is an emergent property of Physical Chemistry, that CANNOT be derived from physics. This conclusivly proves that Physical Chemistry, cannot be reduced into terms of the undepinning physics.I have no idea how you could even think this.

Chirality is determined by whether a molecule is identical with, or different from, its mirror image. If it is identical with its mirror image, then it is not chiral; if it is distinguishable from its mirror image, then it is chiral.

Now, this property of chirality is an essential property of physics. This property determines whether a particular molecule shows the symmetry of parity. Specifically, parity is symmetry of physical results, that is, unchanging laws of physics, under spatial inversion; and a parity violation is an observed change in the laws of physics that happens as a result of such an inversion. So chirality is a violation of parity; undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

[Slimething]

Chirality is determined by whether a molecule is identical with, or different from, its mirror image. If it is identical with its mirror image, then it is not chiral; if it is distinguishable from its mirror image, then it is chiral.

I knew he couldn't stay away for long! So far, he's right.

Now, this property of chirality is an essential property of physics.

Citation, please. But, pray continue. You're about to hang yourself.

This property determines whether a particular molecule shows the symmetry of parity. Specifically, parity is symmetry of physical results, that is, unchanging laws of physics, under spatial inversion; and a parity violation is an observed change in the laws of physics that happens as a result of such an inversion. So chirality is a violation of parity;

Somebody got a jargon generator for Xmas! And I think I know who it is. This is unmitigated male bovine feces. Chirality is a term used in physics but only for subatomic particles. But, wait, it gets even better!

undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

Not described in chemistry? Are you for real? You are an absolute fraud. Anyone who's taken organic chemistry knows about chirality because it's the foundation of stereochemistry. And stereochemistry is one of the foundations of biochemistry. Every single effin' sugar in the universe is chiral, dumbass. Read about Pasteur, not a physicist, and tartaric acid at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_%28chemistry%29.

I think your last few posts have definitively established you as a sham, shneib. Not only do you not know much about science, you're a damned liar to boot.

[Schneibster]

I kind of like, "spamthing." That work for you?

[bobdroege7]

As a graduate of a small mid-western college of liberal arts with 4 Nobel prize in Chemistry winning scientists among the alumni and staff, I have to say.


Give up guys, he is right!

All his physics is math!

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~suslick/chymist.html

But some chemistry bypasses the physics and goes straight to MATH.

[Slimething]

I kind of like, "spamthing." That work for you?

You've outed yourself as a fraud, charlatan and liar. Give it up. You can at least try to exit gracefully. All you're competent to do is vilify anyone who questions you beyond your comfort zone, which is remarkably small.

Go away. Far away. As we both agree, this is a skeptical forum and most people here like to uncover frauds...like yourself.

I would like to say it's been nice...but you aren't.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Cuddles]

You've outed yourself as a fraud, charlatan and liar. Give it up. You can at least try to exit gracefully. All you're competent to do is vilify anyone who questions you beyond your comfort zone, which is remarkably small.

Go away. Far away. As we both agree, this is a skeptical forum and most people here like to uncover frauds...like yourself.

I would like to say it's been nice...but you aren't.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I hate to say it, but Schneibster is one of the most respected people on this forum when it comes to science, especially physics, and there is no doubt that he is absolutely right in this case. The only person who has made a fool of themselves here is you.

[Slimething]

Give up guys, he is right!

All his physics is math!

Nah, bob, he's not right. At least, not if "he" is schneibster. His claim was that chemistry is entirely based on physics, not that physics is math.

In due course of his argument, he as lied at least twice: (1) he claims to possess and have read a book which he obviously does not own or comprehend and (2), when pressed on stereochemistry/chirality, he made up an answer out of thin air that was so outrageously wrong that it takes the breath away.

So, no, if he even was a slight bit right in his argument, the man himself is not "right".

[DeviousB]

That's not how it works. Physics, just like every other science, is predictive, but it's predictive only when you give it an initial state.

A mathematical model of physics is equally predictive, if you give it an initial state.

Again, you're trying to play semantic games, which are quite uninteresting. Not, it's NOT reducible to math. Math is just the language, it does not provide the content. Given an initial state, WHICH of the infinity of possible equations should you use to describe its evolution? Math cannot tell you. You MUST rely upon physical principles, which can ONLY be derived by actual experimentation. Which means you're doing physics.

No, I am using your ontological reductionism. By taking the mathematical properties of reality I can (hypothetically) arrive at a mathematical model of the universe where all your physical phenomena are emergent. The problem is you want ontological reductionism to stop at physics, when in fact there is no reason for it to. Having ontologically reduced biology to chemistry to physics, you are now arguing for methodological reductionism, so that the replacement of entities by simpler underlying entities will stop.

No part of biology does not involve physical entities, hence (ontologically) biology is physics. Similarly, no part of physics is not expressed as mathematics, hence (ontologically) physics is maths. If something is "nothing but" the sum of its components then this is unavoidable.

See "Synthetic and Analytical Thinking" by Franz Wuketits, and "The Metaphysics of Mechanisms and the Challenge of the New Reductionism" by Carl Gillett.

[Ziggurat]

A mathematical model of physics is equally predictive, if you give it an initial state.

A mathematical model of physics is physics, not math. Math alone cannot tell you which of the infinite possible models is a model of reality and which is merely a toy model for a non-existent reality. That is physics, NOT math.

No, I am using your ontological reductionism.

No, you're really not. You're merely getting tiresome in your ignorance.

By taking the mathematical properties of reality

And here it is: the flaw in your argument. The mathematical properties of reality ARE NOT SIMPLY MATH! Space-time is not Euclidean, for example. But math CANNOT TELL YOU THIS! If you start out talking about the "mathematical properties of reality", then you are NOT talking about math, you are talking about physics. You cannot brush the qualifier "of reality" under the rug, because that's the heart of it, not some minor detail.

I can (hypothetically) arrive at a mathematical model of the universe where all your physical phenomena are emergent.

The "mathematical properties of reality" IS the "mathematical model of the universe", and that IS physics.

The problem is you want ontological reductionism to stop at physics, when in fact there is no reason for it to.

Yes there is. You have failed to indicate how one can derive a single physics principle by manipulating math alone. It is not possible, not even in principle. For example, how can you derive that space-time has a hyperbolic, and not a Euclidean, metric? You cannot, not even in principle.

Having ontologically reduced biology to chemistry to physics, you are now arguing for methodological reductionism, so that the replacement of entities by simpler underlying entities will stop.

No, I'm really not. If a property is not derivable without experimentation, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, then it cannot be reduced. Physics CANNOT be determined by math alone. As I already stated, and as you continually fail to address in any form whatsoever, math cannot distinguish between different self-consistent models. Only experimentation can do that. In contrast, while it is almost always easier (and frequently the only possible method for practical reasons) to do actual experiments in biology and chemistry, IN PRINCIPLE these properties can all be derived from physics. The ontology stops at physics because that's the bottom. Math is not the bottom. Math is not science. It is ONLY a language, it is a language COMMON to ALL branches of science, it cannot and does not provide the content.

Edit to add:
Similarly, no part of physics is not expressed as mathematics, hence (ontologically) physics is maths. If something is "nothing but" the sum of its components then this is unavoidable.

But physics is NOT simply math, as I keep telling you and you keep ignoring. Selecting WHICH model describes reality is not a mathematical process, it cannot be done with math, not even in principle. It can ONLY be done by experimentation. Hence (ontologically) physics is NOT maths.

[fls]

So chirality is a violation of parity; undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

Not described in chemistry? Are you for real? You are an absolute fraud. Anyone who's taken organic chemistry knows about chirality because it's the foundation of stereochemistry. And stereochemistry is one of the foundations of biochemistry. Every single effin' sugar in the universe is chiral, dumbass. Read about Pasteur, not a physicist, and tartaric acid at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_%28chemistry%29.

I think your last few posts have definitively established you as a sham, shneib. Not only do you not know much about science, you're a damned liar to boot.

I think you misunderstood. I think Schneibster was referring to parity, not chirality, in that list following the semi-colon.

He could be asked, I suppose.

Linda

[Ziggurat]

Not described in chemistry? Are you for real? You are an absolute fraud.

I think what we have here is a bit of poor phrasing. A better way to phrase it would have been that chirality is not unique to chemistry, that one encounters it on more fundamental levels than chemistry, and that its emergence in chemistry is therefore hardly surprising. Hell, chirality pops up in highschool-level physics (right-hand rule for currents and magnetic fields - that's chirality, though they don't usually use the word), for cryin' out loud. The implication that chemists don't work with chirality, and describe it chemically, is certainly wrong, but I don't think that was really his main point anyways.

As for Schneibster being a fraud, well, that claim just makes you look like a fool. He's proven his knowlegde plenty of times on this board. Even experts can be corrected from time to time, and asking for a clarification, retraction, or rephrasing on a particular point probably wouldn't bug anyone. But you've just pissed him off for really no reason at all, with no cause (since he DOES know quite a bit of physics), and embarassed yourself in the process. Not well played.

[DeviousB]

And here it is: the flaw in your argument. The mathematical properties of reality ARE NOT SIMPLY MATH! Space-time is not Euclidean, for example. But math CANNOT TELL YOU THIS! If you start out talking about the "mathematical properties of reality", then you are NOT talking about math, you are talking about physics. You cannot brush the qualifier "of reality" under the rug, because that's the heart of it, not some minor detail.

The "mathematical properties of reality" IS the "mathematical model of the universe", and that IS physics.


Only if physics is not maths. But physics is maths, hence what you call doing physics is merely determining the initial conditions of the maths. This is no more valid an objection than if I defined biology to be The Science of Living Things so any 'physics' you did involving living things would have to include biology and hence not be reducible.

If a property is not derivable without experimentation, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, then it cannot be reduced. Physics CANNOT be determined by math alone. As I already stated, and as you continually fail to address in any form whatsoever, math cannot distinguish between different self-consistent models. Only experimentation can do that. In contrast, while it is almost always easier (and frequently the only possible method for practical reasons) to do actual experiments in biology and chemistry, IN PRINCIPLE these properties can all be derived from physics.

(a) Because you say experimentation is not a part of mathematics. This is just arbitrary.

(b) This is not reductionism, but expansionism. No biological principle can not be part of physics because you just include it in your physical model and call it physics.

The ontology stops at physics because that's the bottom. Math is not the bottom. Math is not science. It is ONLY a language, it is a language COMMON to ALL branches of science, it cannot and does not provide the content.

That mathematics isn't science is your opinion, and not one shared by many scientific philosophers (Popper for example).

But physics is NOT simply math, as I keep telling you and you keep ignoring.

I ignore it because it is wrong.

Selecting WHICH model describes reality is not a mathematical process, it cannot be done with math, not even in principle. It can ONLY be done by experimentation. Hence (ontologically) physics is NOT maths.

Because you exclude experimentation from mathematics. Your justification for doing this is your own say so, but several mathematical theorems have been proved by reducing the problem to a discrete set then testing the theorem for each member 'by hand'. They are not proving it mathematically in your sense, they are formulating the problem in such a way that its truth or falsity can be shown by a simple experiment.

http://www.expmath.org/

[Ziggurat]

Only if physics is not maths. But physics is maths,

I've never met a mathematician or a physicist who would agree with this assertion.

any 'physics' you did involving living things would have to include biology and hence not be reducible.

Not so. You can take a biological system, ignore any principles of biology per se and only look at physics properties, and study it. I know people who do exactly this, in fact.

(a) Because you say experimentation is not a part of mathematics. This is just arbitrary.

Only in the sense that the definition of every word is arbitrary.

That mathematics isn't science is your opinion, and not one shared by many scientific philosophers (Popper for example).

Got a quote by him providing a definition of what constitutes science and what constitutes math?

Because you exclude experimentation from mathematics.

Damned straight. That's why mathematicians don't have laboratories, just offices.

Your justification for doing this is your own say so, but several mathematical theorems have been proved by reducing the problem to a discrete set then testing the theorem for each member 'by hand'.

That's not an experiment. An experiment is where you test a proposition against physical reality, not against pure logic, which is what you're describing.

They are not proving it mathematically in your sense,

Wrong, wrong, wrong. They ARE proving it mathematically in my sense - that you thought otherwise only illustrates that you don't understand what I'm saying.

http://www.expmath.org/[/QUOTE]

They can call it whatever the hell they like, it ain't the same thing.

[Slimething]

I think you misunderstood. I think Schneibster was referring to parity, not chirality, in that list following the semi-colon.

No, I did not misunderstand. Here's an excerpt of his post. If you don't believe me, it's #104.

Chirality is determined by whether a molecule is identical with, or different from, its mirror image. If it is identical with its mirror image, then it is not chiral; if it is distinguishable from its mirror image, then it is chiral.

Now, this property of chirality is an essential property of physics. This property determines whether a particular molecule shows the symmetry of parity. Specifically, parity is symmetry of physical results, that is, unchanging laws of physics, under spatial inversion; and a parity violation is an observed change in the laws of physics that happens as a result of such an inversion. So chirality is a violation of parity; undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

Obviously, I've added the emphasis.

He could be asked, I suppose.

Linda, you go ahead. I'm fed up with the ***hole. He's fabricated information, lied about it and insulted me in every way that wouldn't draw the automatic censor. If you can find a shred of knowledge or decency in the man, let me know and I'll reevaluate my opinion of him.

[Slimething]

I hate to say it, but Schneibster is one of the most respected people on this forum when it comes to science, especially physics, and there is no doubt that he is absolutely right in this case. The only person who has made a fool of themselves here is you.

Thanks for the information, cuddles.

Do yourself a favor and read his post (#104) and check the facts yourself. Look up the use of the word "chirality" in physics and chemistry and you'll see that he's dead wrong on a number of counts in his response. That passes for authoritative scientific knowledge in your world?

I do admit that he can weave a very convincing statement with big words such that he could fool someone completely unknowledgeable in science but that's not the case with me. If you read this thread starting at #86, you'll find that the man has done nothing but offer up misrepresentations, lies and insults. If that is what you respect in a scientist then you've found your man. However, to pose a question to you, would you have appreciated Sagan as much if he had acted like schneib?

In the meantime, I have no quarrel with you at all. I realize that many idols have clay feet and I didn't set out to expose the man. Perhaps he was drunk or on pain meds while he corresponded in this thread but that is not my responsibility or concern. I too have a right to be treated with courtesy, don't forget that.

[Ziggurat]

No, I did not misunderstand. Here's an excerpt of his post. If you don't believe me, it's #104.
Chirality is determined by whether a molecule is identical with, or different from, its mirror image. If it is identical with its mirror image, then it is not chiral; if it is distinguishable from its mirror image, then it is chiral.

Now, this property of chirality is an essential property of physics. This property determines whether a particular molecule shows the symmetry of parity. Specifically, parity is symmetry of physical results, that is, unchanging laws of physics, under spatial inversion; and a parity violation is an observed change in the laws of physics that happens as a result of such an inversion. So chirality is a violation of parity; undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

What we have here is a case of ambiguity in the language. Let me suggest two different rephrasings of the last sentence:
1) So chirality is a violation of parity; chirality is undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry."
2) So chirality is a violation of parity; parity is undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

As written, the last sentence could in principle mean either 1) or 2). You thought he meant 1), and objected. But the sentence could also have been intended to mean 2). And on second reading, I'm actually inclined to think that's the way it was intended, because otherwise there wouldn't be much point in bringing up the notion of parity. So if you read it as 2), then the argument makes more sense.

Now, misreadings happen all the time. And Schneibster isn't always the most friendly poster. But he generally does know what he's talking about with regard to physics, and if he meant it as 2), then you've jumped on him because you misunderstood an ambiguous sentence.

[Slimething]

What we have here is a case of ambiguity in the language. Let me suggest two different rephrasings of the last sentence:
1) So chirality is a violation of parity; chirality is undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry."
2) So chirality is a violation of parity; parity is undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

As written, the last sentence could in principle mean either 1) or 2). You thought he meant 1), and objected. But the sentence could also have been intended to mean 2). And on second reading, I'm actually inclined to think that's the way it was intended, because otherwise there wouldn't be much point in bringing up the notion of parity. So if you read it as 2), then the argument makes more sense.

Now, misreadings happen all the time. And Schneibster isn't always the most friendly poster. But he generally does know what he's talking about with regard to physics, and if he meant it as 2), then you've jumped on him because you misunderstood an ambiguous sentence.

Ziggurat, that hypothesis would hold water were it not for the sentence where he first made it clear that he was writing about molecular chirality, that is the chemistry kind. Chirality, used in physics, is reserved for subatomic particles. So, you'd have to rewrite pretty much all of his post if you wanted to argue convincingly that I misunderstood either what he wrote or what he intended to write.

BTW, his attitude goes beyond "not the friendliest". Recklessly hostile is a more accurate description. I am not regreting the least bit either catching him at being deceitful or giving as good as I got but, if you or anyone else on this board is a personal friend, you might want to check on him. There is something not right with the man at the moment.

[Schneibster]

I think you misunderstood. I think Schneibster was referring to parity, not chirality, in that list following the semi-colon.

He could be asked, I suppose.

LindaYou are correct. Not that I expect our troll cares. But that's not your problem. ;)

[Schneibster]

Schneibster is one of the most respected people on this forum when it comes to science, especially physicsComing from someone of your caliber, I take this as a compliment of high order. Thank you.

[Schneibster]

(a) Because you say experimentation is not a part of mathematics.
<snip>
Because you exclude experimentation from mathematics. Worth mentioning that the determination of whether a particular point arbitrarily close to the border of the Mandelbrot set is actually a member of the set or not cannot be done by formula; you can only run the Mandelbrot equation over and over again and see if the point eventually falls within the border or not. In other words, run an experiment. On your computer. The result of which you cannot predict in advance.

That should close off this avenue quite effectively.

[Oldpossum]

You get one shot. Use it wisely.

Hmm...

OK.

You may be a Physics genius, but you appear to know b***** all about organic chemistry.

Chirality cannot be described in physics. Any description you care to make of a chiral molecule, based on simply the tools avaliable in physics, will be indistinglishable from it's mirror image.

So there is no way, if you stick to atomic or sub partical properties (ie physics), of describing how, for example, L-Glucose and D-Glucose differ.

PS I am a Synthetic Organic Chemist FYI

PPS You really need to get a handle on the concept of Emergence, maybe if you actually understood the phenomena of emergence, you would't come across as being so ignorant, outside the realm of physics, and you would be able to see that in this case, you are wrong, and slimething is right.

[Slimething]

You are correct. Not that I expect our troll cares. But that's not your problem. ;)

Ah, our confabulator is back. Hiding in the corner until you thought it was safe to come out, little one? So, you can't read and now you can't write either. Is that it? Some physicist. :eye-poppi ROTFLMFAO

Just for jollies, why don't you parse priceless post #104 so that you can weasel your way out of it? I mean, you were writing about molecules, yes? Or were you somehow confused with the mirror images of electrons? (Do you even know why electrons can't have mirror images, schneib?)

Anyone can be a physics genius when they have more qualified apologists sitting by ready to correct their mistakes. Hell, if I had your crowd around, I could say that atomic masses are based on carbon-12 having a mass of exactly 627. Then someone who knows better would tell me I was wrong. Soon, my posse would show and tell the person I really meant 12. Then I could show up and say that was, of course, undoubtedly what I meant. Hey, Dorothy, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

What a laugh. You're a fraud, shneib. Science has many routes to the truth but lying, slander and falsification are verboten. They are prohibited states (if you even know what that means).

BTW, quote something from Harrison's book just so we really know you have a copy, OK? Post one of those wonderful templates so I can plug it into Excel and match it up with a real chemistry value. And, no waiting until tomorrow so that you can't order the book fedexed, OK?

You have a fan club, schneib. They're all much nicer than you are. These are real human beings, so different from you. Take a page from their book. Don't write about stuff you know nothing about and always expect to get out what you put in. Never too late, y'know.

However, you're a fraud. A phony. Too bad/so sad. Sucks to be you. and all that jazz. :)

[Slimething]

PS I am a Synthetic Organic Chemist FYI

I'm an organic analytical/pharmacokinetic chemist. Good to meet you. :)

You arrived not a minute too soon. We've got a mad physicist on the loose who thinks he own the truth and the JREF and doesn't have to conform to any rules of civility or fair play.

[Yllanes]

Wrong thread, I meant to post in another one. Sorry.

[fls]

Anyone can be a physics genius when they have more qualified apologists sitting by ready to correct their mistakes. Hell, if I had your crowd around, I could say that atomic masses are based on carbon-12 having a mass of exactly 627. Then someone who knows better would tell me I was wrong. Soon, my posse would show and tell the person I really meant 12. Then I could show up and say that was, of course, undoubtedly what I meant. Hey, Dorothy, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

I just wanted to clarify that I am not an apologist for Schneibster. I don't know Schneibster, nor do I recall interacting with him previously,* although I have read many posts by him. I'm no slouch in physics, but I doubt I am more qualified than him (this is just a guess).

He wrote a sentence that was ambiguous. I resolved the ambiguity by realizing that his entire post only makes sense if he is referring to parity. I thought that pointing this out would mitigate a source of conflict (yes, I am that stupid :)). This was before I actually went back and read the rest of a thread that I had been following only half-assedly. Mea culpa.

Linda

*Imagine my embarrassment if he now reminds me of our night of unbridled passion at the last TAM. In my defense, I was probably drunk.

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat, that hypothesis would hold water were it not for the sentence where he first made it clear that he was writing about molecular chirality, that is the chemistry kind. Chirality, used in physics, is reserved for subatomic particles.

No, actually, it isn't. The word itself isn't used much outside subatomic particles, but the right-hand rule for magnetic fields in E&M is precisely chirality, and it's about the first thing you learn about magnetism in physics.

[Schneibster]

LOL, no, I'd recognize your avatar if we'd talked much; I think I've seen your posts around a couple times. I've never been to TAM, so you don't have to worry about THAT, anyway.

[fls]

LOL, no, I'd recognize your avatar if we'd talked much; I think I've seen your posts around a couple times. I've never been to TAM, so you don't have to worry about THAT, anyway.

I wasn't that worried, since I've never been to TAM either.

Linda

[Slimething]

No, actually, it isn't. The word itself isn't used much outside subatomic particles, but the right-hand rule for magnetic fields in E&M is precisely chirality, and it's about the first thing you learn about magnetism in physics.

You're right, ziggurat. Chirality is not used as a definitive term in the left- and right-handed rules for electricity and magnetism. It is there in spirit, if nothing else. However, it's amply clear from your friend's post that he was refering plainly and distinctly to molecular (chemical) chirality.

I know what you're getting at. You think I'm being too harsh on schneib and that I'm over-reacting to his "in your face" style of posting. Perhaps calling him a fraud is jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. I am a chemist, not a physicist, so I have no qualifications to judge him as the latter. However, I do know a liar when I catch them lying.

I'll take your word concerning his credentials on physics. However, no one can review his postings in this thread and make any claim that the man exhibits the type of integrity that scientists should have if we, as a class, have any chance in prevailing against our detractors. If you still believe in the man as an authority, you do so at your own risk.

[lenny]

Chirality cannot be described in physics. Any description you care to make of a chiral molecule, based on simply the tools avaliable in physics, will be indistinglishable from it's mirror image.

So there is no way, if you stick to atomic or sub partical properties (ie physics), of describing how, for example, L-Glucose and D-Glucose differ.


not all physicists "stick to atomic or sub partical props", and i imagine few physicists would agree to the claim that they could not distinguish L-Glucose and D-Glucose. i regret not knowing more chemistry, so before i start making silly naive-physicist's guesses about optical properties, perhaps you could tell us how you distinguish them empirically?

thx

[lenny]

Only if physics is not maths. But physics is maths, hence what you call doing physics is merely determining the initial conditions of the maths.

i would like to understand why you feel physics is math. math has no empirical aims/content: to prove 2+2=4 says nothing about the world and does not attempt to. maths provides a language and some tools, but physicists speak badly and misuse the tools and remain proud of the result... hardly evendence that one can be reduced to the other.

one might argue that maths is "bigger than" physics, and that only by experimentation do we find the bits of maths that appear relevant: physics cannot be reduced to maths in that case as the empirical component is not within maths (nor do mathematicans care to have it).

or one can argue (a la nancy cartwright, a philosopher who now is now where popper was) that physics does NOT follow mathematics, but makes arbitrary choices that cannot be justified on mathematical grounds, but only on physic's grounds (it gives the "right" answer).

or one can argue that, in fact, the world is not described (in mathematical precision) by mathematics; that while we have a remarkable useful descriptions of some things at some times, but mathematics does not do the job precisely enough.

in any of those three, physics cannot be "reduced to" maths. in what way do you think that it can be?

thx

[Oldpossum]

not all physicists "stick to atomic or sub partical props", and i imagine few physicists would agree to the claim that they could not distinguish L-Glucose and D-Glucose. i regret not knowing more chemistry, so before i start making silly naive-physicist's guesses about optical properties, perhaps you could tell us how you distinguish them empirically?

thx

1) Measure the optical rotation of a pure solution, using a polarimeter, one enantionmer will have a + value, and the other a - value, a racemic mixture will show no optical rotation.

2) Use as a food base for a particular strain of Lactobacteria. On one substrate (The L) the bacteria will not thrive, but on the other substrate (the D), the bacteria will thrive. (The bacteria only have enzymes for digesting the D-glucose, so can't use the L-glucose as a food source.
Remember, Enzymes have chirality too, so can vary in their reactivity, to the handeness of other chiral molecules.)

3) Taste. they have slightly different tastes. (that's because the receptors on our taste buds are chiral too, so there is a difference in how each enantiomer matches up with a taste receptor.)

4) Complex with a chiral Spin-coupling agent, then run throught an NMR.
The chiral spin coupling agent will cause the frequency of one enatiomers peaks to shift up slightly, and the other enantiomers to shift down slightly; So you will see the NMR of a racemic mixture, display a splitting of the peaks.

Any other physical test, not based on one of the above, will fail to tell the enantiomers apart, because in every other physical property, they are identical.

So basicaly, in order to differentiate the enantiomers of a chiral molecule, you need to resort to using another chiral molecule, to force some sort of breakdown in symetery matching. (Except The polarimiter uses a crystal, or a diffraction grid, to force light into a single plane of polarization; But this could be considered, to be just another way of forceing, a breakdown in symetery matching.)

[DeviousB]

i would like to understand why you feel physics is math. math has no empirical aims/content: to prove 2+2=4 says nothing about the world and does not attempt to. maths provides a language and some tools, but physicists speak badly and misuse the tools and remain proud of the result... hardly evendence that one can be reduced to the other.

If we are defining reductionism to mean 'ontological reductionism', then physics is just maths. No entity in physics, however simple, is not a compound mathematical entity in just the same way that no biological entity, however simple, is not also a compound physical entity.

What you are arguing is methodological reductionism, that the methods and processes of physics (the science) must also reduce to the Ms and Ps of maths for reductionism to be meaningful.

Actually, I would agree with you and have argued for MR on this thread, however the claim was made that biology reduces to physics (because nothing biological is not made of things physical, i.e. OR), but physics does not reduce to maths (because to use the maths you have to do the physics - i.e. MR). To me this is a 'cake and eat it' thing.

in any of those three, physics cannot be "reduced to" maths. in what way do you think that it can be?

In the way that biology reduces to physics.

Under MR, neither (completely) reduces. Under OR, both (pointlessly) do.

[RecoveringYuppy]

So basicaly, in order to differentiate the enantiomers of a chiral molecule, you need to resort to using another chiral molecule, to force some sort of breakdown in symetery matching.
And nothing would stop a physicist from introducing another chiral molecule also. A physicist attempting to analyze a system of chiral molecules from the first principles of quantum mechanics certainly would realize the electron clouds interact differently depending on the symetries of the clouds involved. There is no theory in biology that predicts the chirality of our molecules any more than there is one in physics. It's determined empirically and then worked with from there. Physics and biology are on equal grounds in this regard: the unexplained chiralities noticed by the physicists are presently assumed to be accidents of symetry breaking from the origin of the cosmos, similarly the chiralities of biological systems are though to be an arbitrary "choice" based on some similar accident at the beginning of life.

So, basically there is no reason that the problem of chirality can't be, in principle, addressed by physics. As with other objections to whatever not being able to reduce to physics, the obstacle is computational power. There simply isn't computational power available to solve these problems from the first principles of physics (BTW I wouldn't be surprised if your method 1 (optical rotation) can be addressed from first principles with available computers).

[Ziggurat]

1) Measure the optical rotation of a pure solution, using a polarimeter, one enantionmer will have a + value, and the other a - value, a racemic mixture will show no optical rotation.

Optical rotation is a result of off-diagonal terms in the susceptibility tensor. Physics can and does deal with off-diagonal elements.

(Except The polarimiter uses a crystal, or a diffraction grid, to force light into a single plane of polarization; But this could be considered, to be just another way of forceing, a breakdown in symetery matching.)

Sure, but that kind of symmetry breaking happens all the time in physics. And it's not even confined to molecules, either. The same basic principle (off-diagonal terms in the susceptibility tensor) is at play in optical Kerr rotation, for example, and that's used quite frequently by condensed matter physicists who study magnetic materials (because ferromagnetism also breaks chiral symmetry).

[Slimething]

Optical rotation is a result of off-diagonal terms in the susceptibility tensor. Physics can and does deal with off-diagonal elements.

Yes. More theoretical physics promulgated at describing empirical observation. Nice.

That wasn't the argument being misrepresented by schneibster, though. He wrote that one could predict optical rotation and many other physical traits of molecules strictly from the physics of bonding and knowledge of atomic orbitals. Maybe he'll show up soon with another made-up book about this very exact thing from his Fantasy Collection.

[Schneibster]

Most biochemists don't know enough physics to discuss optical rotation sensibly.

It's really quite simple; you see, the electrons in the outer shells absorb photons that have the same spin chirality they do, and don't absorb ones that don't; and you can only measure spin on one axis at a time. So each one is either up or down, compared to the electron, and if it's down, it gets absorbed. When the electron re-emits it, in order to conserve both spin and momentum, it has to emit it with a rotated spin axis. But that's only if it is in the same axis as the electron- otherwise, it doesn't absorb it.

Now consider that polarization is sorting by spin along one axis.

If that doesn't give you enough clues to figure it out, you'd better give up.

I absolutely know that all biochemists can't be that stupid.

[Slimething]

Most biochemists don't know enough physics to discuss optical rotation sensibly.

For one, I'm not a biochemist. For another, any kind of chemist knows enough to discuss optical rotation a lot more authoritatively than you. I'll point that out below.


It's really quite simple; you see, the electrons in the outer shells absorb photons that have the same spin chirality they do, and don't absorb ones that don't; and you can only measure spin on one axis at a time. So each one is either up or down, compared to the electron, and if it's down, it gets absorbed. When the electron re-emits it, in order to conserve both spin and momentum, it has to emit it with a rotated spin axis. But that's only if it is in the same axis as the electron- otherwise, it doesn't absorb it.

Now consider that polarization is sorting by spin along one axis.

If that doesn't give you enough clues to figure it out, you'd better give up.


Pulling more stuff out of your sphincter again, schneib? Go here: http://www.phys.soton.ac.uk/quantum/lectures/lm6.pdf The link will take you to the real physics explanation of what's happening with polarization of light. It's got nothing to do with the chirality of photons, sap. What universe do you live in anyway?

I absolutely know that all biochemists can't be that stupid.

Well, there's at least one thing that you absolutely know, then.

Now, let's get back to your original point, shall we? 'Splain to all of us how sterochemistry can be completely described using physics. We're all getting a little impatient, schneib. This time, try not fabricating data. You're too easily caught.

[Ziggurat]

Yes. More theoretical physics promulgated at describing empirical observation. Nice.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here.

That wasn't the argument being misrepresented by schneibster, though. He wrote that one could predict optical rotation and many other physical traits of molecules strictly from the physics of bonding and knowledge of atomic orbitals.

Yes, you can.

Maybe he'll show up soon with another made-up book about this very exact thing from his Fantasy Collection.

That book isn't made up. I don't own it personally, but I've met Walter Harrison (the author) and talked with him about the exact sort of stuff Schneibster described in that book, and he even recommended I take a look at it for that reason (though I haven't gotten around to it yet).

Pulling more stuff out of your sphincter again, schneib? Go here: http://www.phys.soton.ac.uk/quantum/lectures/lm6.pdf The link will take you to the real physics explanation of what's happening with polarization of light. It's got nothing to do with the chirality of photons, sap. What universe do you live in anyway?

I'm afraid you're wrong, and the reason you're wrong is that there's more than one equivalent description of the physics involved. Yes, optical rotation occurs in linearly polarized light. But linearly polarized light can also be expressed as a superposition of circularly polarized light with opposite chiralities. The rotation of the polarization axis of linearly polarized light is exactly the same thing as a shift in the relative phases of the two chiralities. And the absobtion and re-emission of one of those chiralities is exactly the sort of thing that leads to a relative phase shift. So your reference hasn't actually contradicted Schneibster's claim - it's just a different representation of the same thing.

This time, try not fabricating data. You're too easily caught.

I don't mind if you don't like Schneibster. Hell, to be honest I don't actually like him much myself. But trust me on this one: he knows a lot of physics.

[Slimething]

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here.

Ziggurat, the "conversation" you stepped in the middle of is one where shneibster has concluded that all sciences stem from physics. That's all I'm getting at from that remark. There is nothing wrong with what you've written.

Yes, you can.

No, Ziggurat, you can't. Physics fails to do much of anything after the very simplest cases. There are many physical parameters that can be estimated from a structure but not all. Again, you're running into schneibster's pissing in the soup in that he claims that one can even calculate the texture of a molecule. Any chemist who's made anything can tell you that's wrong. Anyone who's seen a diamond and held a lump of coal in their hand will tell you that's just an enormous pile of crap.


That book isn't made up. I don't own it personally, but I've met Walter Harrison (the author) and talked with him about the exact sort of stuff Schneibster described in that book, and he even recommended I take a look at it for that reason (though I haven't gotten around to it yet).


No, the book is real. I've found it of sale on the web. (I had to look it up because the schneib likes to make up little facts here and there.) The made up stuff is that schneib claims to possess it and to have read it. From his claims and from the little I found regarding the contents of said book, his claims about the book are pure bunkum. To compound his lie, he later stated the book had no content concerning chemical bonding. That claim was ludicrous because he had posted the title to the book earlier and included the subtitle "The physicis of the chemical bond" (IIRC).

The book is not fantasy but what schneibster says about it is.


I'm afraid you're wrong, and the reason you're wrong is that there's more than one equivalent description of the physics involved. Yes, optical rotation occurs in linearly polarized light. But linearly polarized light can also be expressed as a superposition of circularly polarized light with opposite chiralities. The rotation of the polarization axis of linearly polarized light is exactly the same thing as a shift in the relative phases of the two chiralities. And the absobtion and re-emission of one of those chiralities is exactly the sort of thing that leads to a relative phase shift. So your reference hasn't actually contradicted Schneibster's claim - it's just a different representation of the same thing.


Well, if I'm wrong for that reason, so is schneibster. The article I linked to concerned itself with crystallographic light polarization. The mathematics were based on crystallographic tensors. That is not what occurs in chemical light polarization but it's the best I could do. Kindly post a better explanation of optical rotation by molecules in solution. That is, molecules that are free-floating and are not burdened by a crystal matrix.

I've asked for an explanation and all I'm getting from the physics crowd are allusions to possible explanations which serve me not at all. But, let's face it, the issue is a derail. Maybe it isn't to you but schneibster is using it to smokescreen the fact that he can't make his grandiose claims about physics stick.

I don't mind if you don't like Schneibster. Hell, to be honest I don't actually like him much myself.

I find schneibster's MO repugnant. I've run accross this type of person too many times in my career. On one hand, he's a scientific bully who will try to embarass the other party into submission if they disagree with him or force him out of his comfort zone. On the other hand, he's also the know-it-all who would rather make up facts on the spot than admit there's something he doesn't know. I suspect he means well but he may not appreciate that both of these practices ultimately drive people away from science and into woo-ville. As a matter of fact, a made-up fact can be the basis of someone's distrust of science.

Frankly, I'd rather have him on the other side. (As a matter of fact, I usually find people like him on the other side and I am pretty good at exposing them for the fools they are.)

But trust me on this one: he knows a lot of physics.

I suspect he knows a fair bit of physics. How much and where it ends are, to me, unknown. Frankly, I'll get my physics from more reputable sources.

[lenny]

1) Measure the optical rotation of a pure solution, using a polarimeter, one enantionmer will have a + value, and the other a - value, a racemic mixture will show no optical rotation.

that's the one i wanted. inasmuch as optics isn't chemistry, i think you might just yield to physics coming in here. not in a "rule, explain, govern" way, but more along the lines of Herschel's "sciences working together if they are to do anything real" way.

John Herschell Discourses (#183):
It can hardly be pressed forcibly enough on the attention of the student of nature, that there is scarcely any natural phenomena which can be fully and completely explained in all of its circumstances, without the union of several, perhaps all, the sciences.

not that much has changed since 1830; it may be useful to note that physics envy of those who study "theories of (the) very little" seem less within physics itself than between physics and the other sciences, hard and soft. then again,it might not be.

[lenny]

Actually, I would agree with you and have argued for MR on this thread

understood. i think we are in general agreement.

we could talk about in principle vs in practice, and might even get Schneibster to agree, if perhaps only by destroying the distinction between the sciences along the way... but i'd prefer an alternative leading question...

Under MR, neither (completely) reduces. Under OR, both (pointlessly) do.

even under OR, do you believe science (or "Physics") reduces to maths, without a trivial (circular) definition of mathematics as whatever language science uses?

need a skeptic believe in isomorphism between theory and phenomena, even as a goal? and if not, might there not be more to science than maths, even if that other will eventually be claimed under maths, assuming we are smart enough to construct it?

[Yahzi]

who resent mathemeticians, who are just angry that they can't find dates.
No, the mathematicians resent philosophers, because after all math is just logic writ large.

It's the philosophers who can't find dates.

:D

[Yahzi]

This has to be the most bizzare argument I've ever seen. And I've been to the conspiracy sub-forum.

Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything.
I'm with you, man. I can't follow this argument at all. Every time they say chemistry isn't reducible to physics, I want to say, "You mean chemistry isn't about atoms?"

It's all atoms. If it's strings under the atoms, then it's all strings. How is this not self-evident?

And how is not equally self-evident that studying the properties of individual attoms will be remarkably limited at predicting the behaviour of brazilions of atoms?

I keep expecting someone to huff and puff and cry, "I bet you think mind reduces to brain, you big mean ole reductionist!"

[Yahzi]

However, no one can review his postings in this thread and make any claim that the man exhibits the type of integrity that scientists should have if we, as a class, have any chance in prevailing against our detractors.
I can.

Let me put it this way: I don't know very much about chemistry or physics, but I know what Schnieby's argument is. I understand his point.

On the other hand, I have no idea what your point is. Are you arguing that chemistry is useful and valuable? Well, nobody ever suggested otherwise. Are you arguing that one can be a good chemist without studying hardly any physics? Well, nobody suggested otherwise. Are you arguing that the models we use to understand aggregate interactions of molecules are necessarily different than the models we use to study individual molecular interactions? But nobody suggested otherwise. Are you arguing that the shorthand approximations of chemistry are more socially/practically/morally useful than the less approximate but denser calculations of physics? Well... I'm not sure anybody has opposed that, even.

What you seem to be arguing is that chemistry is equal to atomic interactions plus some interactions that cannot be explained by atomic interactions. But that's so wooish I can't believe that is what you actually mean.

So really, I have no idea what your argument is. Except that you feel slighted by Schnieby.

:huh:

[Slimething]

Let me put it this way: I don't know very much about chemistry or physics, but I know what Schnieby's argument is. I understand his point.

Please do tell. As he resorted to making up evidence for it, he himself may not understand it well either. Please paraphrase.

What you seem to be arguing is that chemistry is equal to atomic interactions plus some interactions that cannot be explained by atomic interactions. But that's so wooish I can't believe that is what you actually mean.

Not at all. You seem to misunderstand completely. Schniebster has taken the position that chemistry is reducible to physics. Physics being defined as that which physics knows about atomic and molecular bonding/orbital modeling today, this minute. Did you not catch that? He cited a real book to back this up but made up the contents.

Several posters on this thread take the facile view that everything is reducible to physics because they define physics as everything. Pretty intelligent stuff, huh? Don't believe it? You just agreed with one in your previous post. That's an amazingly erudite view of science that, as all things are made of atoms, and the study of atoms is physics (really only in physicists' minds is this the case) then everything is physics. If you agree with that point of view then literature is physics also and you can quit reading now.

So, another poster and I have been posing the question of stereochemistry to schneib and he's stuck. He can't explain it and neither can any of the other physicists visiting this thread. Stereochemistry is a conformational phenomenon. That is, it depends not on which atoms are linked or nearby but how they are arranged in space. They have some unusual properties that physics as yet can't handle. Does it seem wooish to you now? Did you know about this before you posted? Did you know that your biochemistry is fairly well dependent on this phenomenon?

But, even if schneiby gets by that one, I've got others.

I have no doubt that physics sooner or later will decipher this phenomenon. Even then, physics is still trying to deal with modeling anything beyond deuterium. There are physicochemical models for a few physical properties of molecules but not many.

So really, I have no idea what your argument is.

Do you understand now?

Except that you feel slighted by Schnieby.

I would feel slighted by the guy if I respected him at all. He's just a blowhard. I'm more disappointed in the other physicists who know him who haven't called him on his mistatements previously. Maybe it's only chemists who self-police?

[Schneibster]

understood. i think we are in general agreement.

we could talk about in principle vs in practice, and might even get Schneibster to agree, if perhaps only by destroying the distinction between the sciences along the way... but i'd prefer an alternative leading question...Hunh? Mmmmfff, nice old dog, wags his tail when you say his name.

Probably, yes. Although I certainly wouldn't claim that all sciences are based on physics- at least not the way they're done now. ;)

[Schneibster]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2329185#post2329185 However, no one can review his postings in this thread and make any claim that the man exhibits the type of integrity that scientists should have if we, as a class, have any chance in prevailing against our detractors.
I can./me hears distant quacking from the other side of the mute barrier.

Thanks, Yahzi, couldn't hardly have said it better myself.