This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm adding a note here in case anyone wants to discuss my current expansion and (eventual) rewrite of this article. It is not clear what the best way is to do this, or indeed whether a short "navigational" article is a better approach, but I'm currently adding links and lists that I think are relevant, with the aim of integrating these into expanded prose later. For ideas, I've been looking at other language articles (some include links to the definitions given by various national chemical societies, which is a good idea), and also at the category system, the portal, and the wikiproject. I will be leaving a note at the wikiproject talk page at some point to ask for advice. I also did some searches for articles relevant to this topic, and will be looking for good sources for an overview of the history of this discipline and also the fuzziness of the definition (though the current material is fairly good already). How to handle the overlap with chemical physics, I'm not sure. I see that an earlier attempt to expand with textbook-like material was reverted, so I'm going to avoid that approach (i.e. I agree the reversion was correct), but I liked the section I saw on the German wikipedia on applications in everyday life. Finally, does anyone have any ideas for a lead image? Carcharoth ( talk) 02:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
An idea for lead image(s) would be to have a montage of the founders of modern physical chemistry. I've put them in a gallery below, but it would need someone to combine them for a montage. Possibly a frontispiece or title page to a book or journal, or of a famous experiment, are the only other things I could think of. Well, a montage of image from several disciplines that arose from physical chemistry is another idea. I'll try and find some images that could be brought together in a montage for that. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe other images would be better, but those are the ones I found. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems a series of journal articles exist on the history of physical chemistry by country (or other subtopic). I'm listing some of them here:
Not sure how useful these will be (some, maybe most of them, are autobiographical accounts), but leaving the notes here in case they are of use to someone. Carcharoth ( talk) 04:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Updated: 14:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to work out how best to handle the history section here. It needs to co-ordinate primarily with history of chemistry, but also with the history of chemical physics and maybe the history of physics as well. From looking at the talk page of history of chemistry, I found that history of biology is a featured article, so ideas on structure could come from there. In particular, there are links to the history of subdisciplines such as History of genetics, History of biochemistry, History of molecular biology, History of biotechnology, and History of molecular evolution. There is certainly enough material for a History of physical chemistry article (similar to histories of the other sub-disciplines), but I may start from the section here rather than create it immediately. I also noticed a section on 'Twenty-first century biological sciences', and something similar would probably work well in the history of chemistry articles. Anyway, a note like the above should be left at Talk:History of chemistry. I also found this (some useful images there if they can be obtained under a free license), and Template:History of biology would be a good model for both history of chemistry and history of physics. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Great to see someone bravely tackle this article!
My physical chemistry colleagues would by amused by the list of four main topics. We barely cover any of these topics in our courses on physical-chem, beginning or advanced course. These topics inhabit the back end of our textbooks and we dont get to them. Of course, the article is about an idealized view of a field, not about course work, but it is interesting contrast. The section on awards, like many articles in Wikipedia, is written as if the US were the only player. Only ACS awards are listed. I recommend removing the section because it is impossible to be objective, and the awards are less important than the substantive parts. Possibly only include Nobel prizes to physical chemistry. The section on "Research institutions" should also be removed. Hundreds of universities sees themselves as "research institutions" and within many universities (and national labs), there are sub-institutes. This section invites vanity entries and posturing, IMHO. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Have been looking through various lists of chemists and the ones that could probably be mentioned in this article (some already are) are, probably in the history section or a timeline of physical chemistry: Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff, Svante Arrhenius, Wilhelm Ostwald, Walther Nernst, Gilbert N. Lewis, Johannes Nicolaus Brønsted, Martin Lowry, Peter Debye, Lars Onsager, Linus Pauling, Erich Hückel, Cyril Norman Hinshelwood, Nikolay Semyonov, Willard Libby, Harold Urey, Paul Flory.
Others that might warrant mention (though less famous) are Richard Abegg, Nikolay Beketov, Johann Josef Loschmidt, Ernst Otto Beckmann, Yuan T. Lee, John Charles Polanyi, Dudley R. Herschbach, Ilya Prigogine, Hendrik Willem Bakhuis Roozeboom, Werner Kuhn, Max Volmer, Max Bodenstein, Boris Nikolsky, Mikhail Shultz, Jaroslav Heyrovský, Gustav Heinrich Johann Apollon Tammann, Herbert A. Hauptman, Jerome Karle, Gerhard Ertl, Frederick G. Donnan, Gerhard Herzberg, Archer John Porter Martin, Hans Kuhn, Ivan Stranski, Richard R. Ernst. Also possibly (though this is more for other achievements): Sir David King, and Peter Atkins.
Those are just ballpark suggestions, though. Obviously others will need to be mentioned as well and some of these not mentioned, and sources consulted to work out the right balance to strike here. Actually, having looked through the above list, it isn't really that helpful, but it is something to keep in mind. One question to ask would be how to decide what/who to put in and what to leave out. The sources used [mainly The World of Physical Chemistry (Laidler, 1993) and Physical Chemistry from Ostwald to Pauling (Servos, 1996)] will help decide that, but there will need to be some editorial judgment as well. Probably better to err on the side of caution in a top-level article like this, and leave detail to more specific articles. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Based on the advice given earlier on this talk page to look at inorganic chemistry, and also based on the sections in The World of Physical Chemistry (1993, notes here), I'm proposing to redo the layout of this article as follows:
Under the proposed layout above, everything else would have to be a subsection of one of the above sections (see the subsections in inorganic chemistry), or handled differently. I'm uncertain what to do about the history section and if there is one, where it should go. I'm also still uncertain where and how to mention chemical physics. The proposed section title "Recent years" is not ideal, but "21st century physical chemistry" will also look dated eventually.
Also, if the above proposed structure is compared to the links currently in the article and in the 'branches and related topics' section, then the following would need to be subsumed into the main sections or made into subsections (unless some should be on the same level as the six above): intermolecular force, colloid, nuclear chemistry, astrochemistry, group contribution method, thermochemistry, photochemistry, solid-state chemistry, biophysical chemistry, materials science, physical organic chemistry, and micromeritics. Possibly some of these are more recent sub-disciplines that have emerged in recent years, possibly some can be dropped entirely.
My questions are:
OK, that's what I've come up with so far. Anyone have any thoughts on this or answers to the questions I've posed? Carcharoth ( talk) 01:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)) to see what how the subject is being taught today.
Petergans (
talk)
10:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)The methods for predicting physiochemical properties may be precise, but they are not accurate. And many would consider this sort of thing to be chemical engineering rather than physical chemistry. But the boundary line between these two, if it exists at all, is always changing. Perhaps some discussion of this distinction would be helpful. 63.226.222.247 ( talk) 05:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Smokefoot, I've reverted the last edit. Though I thought it made some good stylistic changes, it corrupted the sense of the original text. I've tried to incorporate some of the stylistic changes you introduced, but I think it's more important to be factually accurate rather than stylistically accurate for now. ChE Fundamentalist ( talk) 22:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm adding a note here in case anyone wants to discuss my current expansion and (eventual) rewrite of this article. It is not clear what the best way is to do this, or indeed whether a short "navigational" article is a better approach, but I'm currently adding links and lists that I think are relevant, with the aim of integrating these into expanded prose later. For ideas, I've been looking at other language articles (some include links to the definitions given by various national chemical societies, which is a good idea), and also at the category system, the portal, and the wikiproject. I will be leaving a note at the wikiproject talk page at some point to ask for advice. I also did some searches for articles relevant to this topic, and will be looking for good sources for an overview of the history of this discipline and also the fuzziness of the definition (though the current material is fairly good already). How to handle the overlap with chemical physics, I'm not sure. I see that an earlier attempt to expand with textbook-like material was reverted, so I'm going to avoid that approach (i.e. I agree the reversion was correct), but I liked the section I saw on the German wikipedia on applications in everyday life. Finally, does anyone have any ideas for a lead image? Carcharoth ( talk) 02:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
An idea for lead image(s) would be to have a montage of the founders of modern physical chemistry. I've put them in a gallery below, but it would need someone to combine them for a montage. Possibly a frontispiece or title page to a book or journal, or of a famous experiment, are the only other things I could think of. Well, a montage of image from several disciplines that arose from physical chemistry is another idea. I'll try and find some images that could be brought together in a montage for that. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe other images would be better, but those are the ones I found. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems a series of journal articles exist on the history of physical chemistry by country (or other subtopic). I'm listing some of them here:
Not sure how useful these will be (some, maybe most of them, are autobiographical accounts), but leaving the notes here in case they are of use to someone. Carcharoth ( talk) 04:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Updated: 14:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to work out how best to handle the history section here. It needs to co-ordinate primarily with history of chemistry, but also with the history of chemical physics and maybe the history of physics as well. From looking at the talk page of history of chemistry, I found that history of biology is a featured article, so ideas on structure could come from there. In particular, there are links to the history of subdisciplines such as History of genetics, History of biochemistry, History of molecular biology, History of biotechnology, and History of molecular evolution. There is certainly enough material for a History of physical chemistry article (similar to histories of the other sub-disciplines), but I may start from the section here rather than create it immediately. I also noticed a section on 'Twenty-first century biological sciences', and something similar would probably work well in the history of chemistry articles. Anyway, a note like the above should be left at Talk:History of chemistry. I also found this (some useful images there if they can be obtained under a free license), and Template:History of biology would be a good model for both history of chemistry and history of physics. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Great to see someone bravely tackle this article!
My physical chemistry colleagues would by amused by the list of four main topics. We barely cover any of these topics in our courses on physical-chem, beginning or advanced course. These topics inhabit the back end of our textbooks and we dont get to them. Of course, the article is about an idealized view of a field, not about course work, but it is interesting contrast. The section on awards, like many articles in Wikipedia, is written as if the US were the only player. Only ACS awards are listed. I recommend removing the section because it is impossible to be objective, and the awards are less important than the substantive parts. Possibly only include Nobel prizes to physical chemistry. The section on "Research institutions" should also be removed. Hundreds of universities sees themselves as "research institutions" and within many universities (and national labs), there are sub-institutes. This section invites vanity entries and posturing, IMHO. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Have been looking through various lists of chemists and the ones that could probably be mentioned in this article (some already are) are, probably in the history section or a timeline of physical chemistry: Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff, Svante Arrhenius, Wilhelm Ostwald, Walther Nernst, Gilbert N. Lewis, Johannes Nicolaus Brønsted, Martin Lowry, Peter Debye, Lars Onsager, Linus Pauling, Erich Hückel, Cyril Norman Hinshelwood, Nikolay Semyonov, Willard Libby, Harold Urey, Paul Flory.
Others that might warrant mention (though less famous) are Richard Abegg, Nikolay Beketov, Johann Josef Loschmidt, Ernst Otto Beckmann, Yuan T. Lee, John Charles Polanyi, Dudley R. Herschbach, Ilya Prigogine, Hendrik Willem Bakhuis Roozeboom, Werner Kuhn, Max Volmer, Max Bodenstein, Boris Nikolsky, Mikhail Shultz, Jaroslav Heyrovský, Gustav Heinrich Johann Apollon Tammann, Herbert A. Hauptman, Jerome Karle, Gerhard Ertl, Frederick G. Donnan, Gerhard Herzberg, Archer John Porter Martin, Hans Kuhn, Ivan Stranski, Richard R. Ernst. Also possibly (though this is more for other achievements): Sir David King, and Peter Atkins.
Those are just ballpark suggestions, though. Obviously others will need to be mentioned as well and some of these not mentioned, and sources consulted to work out the right balance to strike here. Actually, having looked through the above list, it isn't really that helpful, but it is something to keep in mind. One question to ask would be how to decide what/who to put in and what to leave out. The sources used [mainly The World of Physical Chemistry (Laidler, 1993) and Physical Chemistry from Ostwald to Pauling (Servos, 1996)] will help decide that, but there will need to be some editorial judgment as well. Probably better to err on the side of caution in a top-level article like this, and leave detail to more specific articles. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Based on the advice given earlier on this talk page to look at inorganic chemistry, and also based on the sections in The World of Physical Chemistry (1993, notes here), I'm proposing to redo the layout of this article as follows:
Under the proposed layout above, everything else would have to be a subsection of one of the above sections (see the subsections in inorganic chemistry), or handled differently. I'm uncertain what to do about the history section and if there is one, where it should go. I'm also still uncertain where and how to mention chemical physics. The proposed section title "Recent years" is not ideal, but "21st century physical chemistry" will also look dated eventually.
Also, if the above proposed structure is compared to the links currently in the article and in the 'branches and related topics' section, then the following would need to be subsumed into the main sections or made into subsections (unless some should be on the same level as the six above): intermolecular force, colloid, nuclear chemistry, astrochemistry, group contribution method, thermochemistry, photochemistry, solid-state chemistry, biophysical chemistry, materials science, physical organic chemistry, and micromeritics. Possibly some of these are more recent sub-disciplines that have emerged in recent years, possibly some can be dropped entirely.
My questions are:
OK, that's what I've come up with so far. Anyone have any thoughts on this or answers to the questions I've posed? Carcharoth ( talk) 01:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)) to see what how the subject is being taught today.
Petergans (
talk)
10:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)The methods for predicting physiochemical properties may be precise, but they are not accurate. And many would consider this sort of thing to be chemical engineering rather than physical chemistry. But the boundary line between these two, if it exists at all, is always changing. Perhaps some discussion of this distinction would be helpful. 63.226.222.247 ( talk) 05:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Smokefoot, I've reverted the last edit. Though I thought it made some good stylistic changes, it corrupted the sense of the original text. I've tried to incorporate some of the stylistic changes you introduced, but I think it's more important to be factually accurate rather than stylistically accurate for now. ChE Fundamentalist ( talk) 22:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |