Talk:Physical chemistry/Archive 1

Chemical physics vs. Physical chemistry
Chemical physics is a stub. Semantically, is there enough of a difference between that and physical chemistry to warrant separate articles? -- Christopherlin 03:06, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) (forgot to log in)

There is a small difference between physical chemistry and chemical physics but asking around no-one can explain it properly. Generally physical chemists (like myself) have a background in chemistry while chemical physists have a background in physics. I have read papers where the author has referenced both chem. phys. and phys. chem. journals. Afn

Here's my $0.02. I think there is a significant difference between physical chemistry and chemical physics. Traditionally, chemical physics deals only with microscopic phenomena such as quantum chemistry, while physical chemistry also encompasses macroscopic viewpoints such as thermodynamics. Chemical physics does not deal with thermodynamics. However, in modern scientific research, few people do basic research in thermodynamics any longer, which makes this rather a moot point. I am a molecular spectroscopist, which makes me both a physical chemist and a chemical physicist. The original reason why the Journal of Chemical Physics was founded in the 1930's was that the Journal of Physical Chemistry would not accept theoretical articles at that time. Today, the two journals cover largely the same subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.250.7.161 (talk • contribs)


 * Chemical Physics doesn't deal with thermodynamics? Well thermodynamics itself is a PHYSICAL topic. In any case, I think if your program says "phys chem" or "chem phys" you'll probably study the same material, and really you should study both chemistry and physics anyway, even if you're say in inorganic chem, or analytical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.240.84 (talk • contribs)

I agree broadly with the point that there is not much difference. However, there is the point of where the work is done. If it is in a Chemistry Department, it is usually, but not always, called Physical Chemistry. If it is done in a Physics Department, it is usually, but not always, called Chemical Physics. The Journal of Chemical Physics is published by the American Institute of Physics. The Journal of Physical Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. --Bduke (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the only difference is that physical chemistry is usually done in physics departments and physical chemistry is done in chemistry departments. I hear "physical chemistry" much more often though. Many of the people who do reasearch in physical chemistry in my university have a background in physics (but there are also just as many chemists). What I completely disagree with is that physical chemistry doesn't treat microscopic systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.61.117.173 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Random comment
I wanted to add a term to your glossary, since good encyclopedias include technical terms one might not find in ordinary dictionaries. The structure of your site does not make it obvious where to add the word "bristance". My father was trained in ordnance in WWII, and used "bristance" to describe the maximum pressure a given chemical reaction could generate. I haven't looked hard enough to find an alphabetical listing, nor any headings for chemical reactions or explosives or explosive materials. I guess I could not blame you if you wish to wait before fleshing out technical terms of a mostly military nature, but then, you might want to rethink your blanket recommendation that the work is to be done without bias or discrimination. I believe that some forms of non-racial discrimination are good. Indeed, "discriminating" used to carry a positive connotation. Anon

I believe the term is brisance.Tex 21:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Willard Gibbs
I agree wih Sguzior that the Intro is not the place for Gibbs, but I don't think he should be the only one under a rubric called "Beginnings." I would put him in a paragraph of his own at the top of the '"Important physical chemists" section, which I have done. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with Logger9: indiscriminate insertion of textbook material
I just reverted a series of edits by User:Logger9. He inserted huge blocks of text, explaining, among others, the ideal gas laws and some thermodynamics. The style is more that of a textbook than of an encyclopedic summary; the explanations are far too long; they needlessly duplicate material from more specialized articles.

The old / restored version is certianly too short. It ends with a list of "subtopics"; it would certainly be appropriate to explain each of these subtopics in a concise paragraph. However, Logger9's insertions are not a good way to improve the article; on the contrary, such an amount of half-appropriate material will discourage potential editors from contributing.

Sadly, this is not an isolated event. I have discussed at length with Logger9 on Talk:Liquid. At some point, however, he just stop to answer, leaving the page Liquid in blocked state. Next, he inserted textbook material into Solution; I cleaned up only partly to avoid a repetition of the Liquid discussion.

I would like to invite admins to have a deep look into Logger9's edit history, and to advise what should be done to prevent this kind of discussion repeating again and again. -- Marie Poise (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Marie, perhaps you could raise this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science and ask for a second opinion? That might get some more science-oriented contributors to come along and comment, either here or on his talk page. NW ( Talk ) 19:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ISBN Numbers
A lot of the references look like textbooks, and 1, 2 and 7 are missing a link to Google Books and an ISBN number, can someone fix that? Thanks, Tall Guy Wonder (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Links to Google Books are not obligatory. I'll see what I can do about ISBNs. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ref 7 is a journal article. The titles of refs 1 & 2 are too generic to know exactly which version is cited. Sorry. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)