Talk:Chemical physics

Question?
Anybody know where I can get some good reading on Chemical Physics?

Is there an equivalent to "Chemical Physics for Dummies" or something along those lines?

Perhaps my best bet is to read different books on Physical Chemistry to get a feel for it, seeing as Chemical Physics tends to be multidisciplinary.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.91.139 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the series Studies in Chemical Physics would be a good reading.--5.15.35.108 (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, the article doesn't seem very descriptive and doesn't differentiate between Physical Chemistry and Chemical Physics as it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.91.139 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is another aspect regarding distinctions, that of distinguishing between physics and chemical physics. Is there any subfield of physics which be explicitly non-chemical? It seems that there isn't any subdomain of physics explicitly non-chemical.--5.15.35.108 (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Another of those subtle distinctions, not so? Ema--or (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Archived discussion

Joke from the 1960's when journals were published on paper
"What is the difference between the Journal of Chemical Physics and the Journal of Physical Chemistry?".

Official answer: "One has a blue cover, one has a red cover."

Sorry, no source other than memory. So I'll just leave it on this talk page instead of trying to insert it in the article. Dirac66 (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Haha, never miss an opportunity for humour on the wiki if you can afford it! Ema--or (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Differentiation between physical chemistry and chemical physics
As best I can see, we haven't been able truly differentiate between physical chemistry and chemical physics. As such, I see two alternatives. First, we merge the articles, while preserving the two different viewpoints into the subject matter.

The second, I think more productive alternative, would be to come up with some sort of an intuitive understanding between the two communities (us as editors working as proxies for them), so that we could find the dividing line between the disciplines, as understood by the scientists doing the work. After that, find the relevant sources which define the distinction, from the literature, and which can serve as encyclopedic citations.

As a person who's well versed in science, but formally also a complete amateur and autodidact, my hunch is that *if* there is a dividing line here at all, it has to do with going from small-to-large/bottom-to-top (physical chemistry; prediction of chemical phenomena from basic quantum physics), versus going large-to-small/top-to-bottom (so study of large scale chemical phenomena like solvation or phospholipid bilayers, using say empirical statistical physics reasoning; maybe elucidating some properties of basic physics in the process, from the collective standpoint of instantaneous reaction kinetics, which might not *all* be accessible from the simplified empirical setup typical of modern high precision physics).

Something like that could very well be what the distinction is about. It sounds natural. But then of course, we as editors simply get to write the prose, not invent definitions. Take these ideas of mine to be fodder for googling and contacting primary authors for secondary sources. Maybe that way we could find the source of the division between the two fields, and could document it properly? (If not, then a merge is called for.) Decoy (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 300
— Assignment last updated by RS UBC800 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis of this article and how to improve it
Chemical physics is a relatively important topic in chemistry, but it lacks many details. This article needs to elaborate on the history of this field's development and clearly explain the relationship between Chemical Physics and Physical Chemistry since all discussions are related to this. Some of the claims in this article lack appropriate references. The article does not have any images. Adding images with clear captions could significantly improve the article's visual appeal and aid in explaining concepts in Chemical Physics. To conclude, I plan to elaborate on the history of the development of chemical physics, include appropriate references to support all claims, clarify the distinction between Chemical Physics and its related fields, and add relevant images to illustrate key concepts. Santory300 (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)