The New Chemistry

danny writes: "The New Chemistry is a survey of the science behind many of Slashdot's technology stories - read on for my review. (An older title of related interest is Chemical Evolution: Origin of the Elements, Molecules, and Living Systems )." Read on for the rest of Danny's review. The New Chemistry author Nina Hall, ed. pages 500 publisher Cambridge University Press rating 8.5 reviewer Danny Yee ISBN 0-521-45224-4 summary an overview of modern chemistry and its applications.

The New Chemistry provides an overview of modern chemistry and its applications, with seventeen review articles by specialists. Though commissioned for this volume, these take different approaches and are pitched at different levels: some are quite broadly accessible, while others assume the reader has studied chemistry at university (I found my physics and biology background helped a lot). Apart from multiple explanations of semiconduction, there is little repetition and an immense range of material is covered. The result is a fascinating picture of the science underpinning much modern technology.

The first five articles involve a fair bit of physics. "The Search for New Elements" looks at the synthesis of elements beyond uranium. "Bonding and the Theory of Atoms and Molecules" touches on a mix of theory: chemical bonds, reaction dynamics, simulation of liquids, and mathematical chemistry. "Chemistry in a New Light" and "Novel Energy Sources for Reactions" look at new tools for controlling reactions: lasers, electrosynthesis, microwaves, and ultrasound. And "What, Why and When is a Metal?" explains how the well-known criteria for distinguishing metals and insulators don't always work; this is one of the more accessible chapters, with a good selection of colour illustrations and historical "boxes."

The more "pure chemistry" chapters were the ones I had the most trouble following. These include "The Clothing of Metal Ions: Coordination Chemistry at the Turn of the Millenium," "Surface Chemistry", and "New Roads to Molecular Complexity." Other chapters connect more with biology. "Medicines from Nature" illustrates the search for new medicines through a case study of Erythromycin biosynthesis. "From Pharms to Farms" has two parts, one surveying major drugs and fragrances and the other pesticides. And "The Inorganic Chemistry of Life" is an unusual abstract overview of life from the point of view of an inorganic chemist.

A range of chapters are oriented towards engineering applications; these will be of particular interest to those following new computing technologies. "Supramolecular Chemistry" is an accessible look at the building of structures, at the chemical approach to nanotechnology. "Advanced Materials" focuses on applications to electronics - alternatives to silicon, packaging materials, liquid crystals, plastic batteries, and more - while "Molecular Electronics" focuses on actual circuits, on conductors and switches and molecular computing. "Electrochemical and Photoelectrochemical Energy Conversion" looks in detail at a range of traditional and experimental battery and fuel cell systems, and more briefly at photoelectrochemical cells and photochemical waste disposal.

"Chemistry Far from Equilibrium: Thermodynamics, Order and Chaos" is the most mathematical chapter, presenting some dynamical theory with a few examples. And a final chapter "Chemistry in Society" outlines the contributions of chemistry back to the Industrial Revolution, and urges better research both to avoid environmental problems and to correct popular misconceptions.

Purchase The New Chemistry from FatBrain or check out Danny's 600 other reviews. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.

Comments

bitterness...

[supernova87a]

It may be just my opinion (as a former chemist turned physicist), but I think that chemists are rather limited. They're (in general) not very well versed in technological issues and the hard science -- I've found that they're usually an "end-user" of other disciplines' accomplishments.

For example, organic chemists probably have no idea what a fast fourier transform is, although it powers one of their most important instruments, namely the NMR. And don't ever try to ask a chemist to explain quantum mechanics to you. They're taught a completely hand-waving version of it in school, and pass it on from generation to generation.

That said, sometimes it's pretty frustrating because while they don't seem to have as good a fundamental knowledge of the physics or math, they get a damn lot more money in grants etc. I guess practical things, like medicines, are important in that sense.

Look at any large organic chemistry group around the country, and I guarantee they'll have power macs up the wazoo, origin 3000 machines configured as mail servers, stereoscopic visualization goggles, etc. And they generally have no idea what to do with them....

Re:bitterness...

[Dark Paladin]

*SNIP*

Look at any large organic chemistry group around the country, and I guarantee they'll have power macs up the wazoo, origin 3000 machines configured as mail servers, stereoscopic visualization goggles, etc. And they generally have no idea what to do with them....

Like running a Quake server?

Re:bitterness...

[didjit]

I know you do have experience as a former chemist, but the way you speak of chemists, it sounds as if all chemist are simpleton organic chemist. I agree that most organic labs get way more funding and most of the people don't understand the technology behind NMR, but ... there are hoards of chemists out there that buck your stereotype. Chemists that don't understand quantum? Try physical chemists. Chemists that wouldn't understand Fourier transforms? How about theoretical chemists. As someone who has worked in an organic lab before, as well as seen the "other side," I'd have to say that chemistry is a lot more than running an organic synthesis and then looking at its NMR spectra. Thus the point of this book, to show people like yourself the frontiers of chemistry. I don't mean to start a chemist vs. physicist flame war (I'm an engineer anyway) but don't be bitter if the chemists get some respect once in a while.

Re:bitterness...

[supernova87a]

Well, the reason I generalize to organic chemists is because they're the ones who are dominating the field in sheer number. Physical and theoretical chemistry is fairly constant in this regard -- always approximately the same number of students, professors, etc. But in organic chemistry, and especially bioorganic, medicinal, and related fields, there is an explosion of people joining the subject. And I have to say, they're not all Alfred Einsteins.... :)

Re:bitterness...

[Graff]

It may be just my opinion (as a former chemist turned physicist), but I think that chemists are rather limited. They're (in general) not very well versed in technological issues and the hard science -- I've found that they're usually an "end-user" of other disciplines' accomplishments.

Well, as a former physicist turned chemist I can say that I think you're a bit off here. All professions have these sort of people and these statements you have made are true with physicists as well.

One of the main difference between chemists and physicists is that more chemists tend to be experimentalists and more physicists tend to be theorists. That is, a good deal of chemistry is focused on physical experiments with the end goal of being able to produce physical substances. A much larger percentage of physics is focused on mathematical theory and mathematical constructs. For many more branches of physics than of chemistry the focus is on producing models rather than physical objects.

This doesn't mean that chemists are not versed in physics or math. It's just that for many branches of chemistry the focus on higher-order physics and math is not as necessary. This is just like for physicists the focus is not on higher-order chemistry and biochemistry. Most chemists do have a good understanding of fast fourier transforms and quantum mechanics because these things are integral to the field of chemistry. I wouldn't expect, however, for a chemist to instantly know all there is to know about general or special relativity, or string theory - this are topics not vital to a chemist's job.

Chemists do get a good share of the grant money out there, but don't discount the amounts that physicists get. There are quite a few physics centers out there that pull in the big bucks, such as Kamioka Observatory, CERN, and Fermilab, among others. Sure the total amount of money that all physics projects receive is not as much as the total that all chemistry projects receive, but people are more focused on the quicker fruits that chemistry tends to produce rather than the future fruits that physics tends to produce. This does not diminish the importance of the work of physicists and physicists should not blame chemists for getting the grant money, it's not a horse race for who can get the most cash.

Re:bitterness...

[Masem]

Coming from a chemical engineering background, I would argue that chemists ARE well-versed in hard sciences, more than you expect.

You use the NMR as an example. The NMR was developed by chemists (and I believe the inventors got the Nobel a few years ago for it). Some of the technology is end-use developed from other fields (for example, spinning magnets I would expect from friends in physics), but the fundamental science that NMR uses (looking at spin coorelations between neighboring atoms in a molecule) is pure chemistry, and putting together those end-use systems as well as unique elements together in such a way to be able to capture that is what makes the NMR invention unique. This is typically the way with most chemical instrumentation.

Now, just because NMR or other equipment that a chemist uses has a FFT in it, does it mean they need to know it? Typically not: they should be aware that the time-based signal they are collecting is being converted to frequency, which is the data of most interest, but they don't need to know all the mathematical computations that go into the FFT. That's not to say that chemists don't know it; there is a large body of chemists that overlap with mathematicians and comp scis to develop new and improve existing algorithms common in analysis. Even typical organic chemists that work mostly in a lab will know what the FFT transform is, though not necessarily being able to fully describe it.

And I would argue heavily with chemists not knowing quantum mechanics. There's typically 4 (recently 5) unofficial divisions of chemistry: organic, inorganic, analytical, theorhetical, and of late, bio-organic; the division is heavily weighted with organcis and bio, but the other 3 divisions are about equal in terms of distribution. I'd estimate that between 5 and 10% of chemists are in theorhetical, based on my experiences at grad schools and paper outputs. And theorhetical chemists spend most of their time working with molecular simulations, quantum mechanics, and other computer tools to develop models and predictions for how matter interacts. These models certainly aren't perfect, but they do know quantum theory quite well since most of these simulations account for quantum-type effects. As for other chemists, there is a need to know what quantum theory is, but in the typical lab reaction that most chemists do, it doesn't make a big difference. So therefore, they know the quantum theory, but they never need to apply it at large.

So I completely disagree that chemists hand-wave. A poor chemist will, but those that are trained at good graduate schools know that they can't get through doing that. But there is a point that you need to assume that the instrument or reading is correct and you don't need to understand the underlying principle in order to proceed forward; a good chemist knows how to test and calibrate an instrument to the point of being satisfied that the reading is as what should be predicted, and then will 'question' everything else beyond that.

(And the reason for macs is that much of the best chemical structure drawing and professional graphing (!Excel) software was developed on Macs first, and while PC versions have come out to equate those versions, its hard to get academics to spend the money to switch over when what they have *works* for their needs. Also, a lot of older equipment only has software that works on specific versions of an OS, and so they are limited by that as well.)

Re:bitterness...

[loydcc]

The original poster complains that chemists don't understand physics and then uses a math trick to illustrate his point. All the sciences stem from some mathematical model or another. I do agree with you that not all the mathematical models are needed for good chemistry.

It comes down to Physics gets diddly, Chemistry gets some but don't forget that hands down Biology is where the grant money is. As for money it seems the further away from math you get the more the grant money.

Good stuff

[dciman]

I own this book and it is a wonderful overview of some astonishing things. As a microbiologist I would love to see a similar title come out covering the major developments of molecular biology over the past 40 years or so. Where chem. has had quite some time to develop over the years... there has been a literal explosion of scientific data being uncovered in the world of molecular microbiology. Just think.... it wasn't untill the 1950's that the structure of DNA was established. ALL of the knowledge we have now, has developed since then... to me... that is amazing.

Hope its better than the "New Economy"

[chinton]

What do you mean my reactions have to balance? This is the New chemistry. I'm not bound by the principles of your out-dated models.

So, um, is it good?

[iiii]

This is supposed to be a review, right? He tells us some objective facts about the book, but there are no conclusions or recommendations here. Does Danny recommend the book or not? If all you have to do for a book review is give the table of contents, I need to get into that industry.

Re:So, um, is it good?

[skoda]

Not review but overview (as you can see, it underwent the standard Slashdot-Keyword-Munging operation.

Re:So, um, is it good?

[danny]

I think the review makes it clear I think the volume is good: "fascinating", "accessible", ... It is, however, hard to generalise about 17 rather different articles - how "good" they are likely to be depends a lot on who the reader is and what their background is.

But some of my reviews are definitely more substantial than others, 'tis true. You might like to check out what I think is the shortest. The average review length is only 400 words, though that's been climbing slowly.

Danny.

don't know about you...

[efuseekay]

but steve chu once said in a colloquim that the two craziest things that any physicist can do are string theory and organic chemistry....

New Elements

[ackthpt]

Firstpostium: Always attempts to appear at the top of the Periodic Chart, usually for no fathomable reason, frequently target of moderatium reactions.

Taconium: Bonds readily with Kathleenium.

Kathleenium: Bonds approx. 15 minutes later with Taconium.

Athlonium and Pentium: Elements which increase energy levels frequently, highly exothermic, although less so as they are refined, in constant competition for best performance.

Trollium: Densest element known to man, will react even with itself but prefers to bond to any other element.

Moderatium: Appears in cyberspace, sometimes where least needed or bonds inappropraitely, sometimes replaced by Metamoderatium.

Katzium: Occasionally emits photons of insight in cyberspace, frequent target of trollium reactions.

Slashdottium: Highly radioactive, half-life ~20 minutes, when bonded to a link often replaces it with blackhole.

Redmondium: Pervasive, claims to be more stable than linuxium, but is frequently reduced by hax0rium, replaces atomic structure every ~2 years, but still looks almost exactly the same.

Hax0rium: Great affinity for almost any of the Techthanide or Codeinide series of elements, will often reduce or produce warzeides.

CowboyNealium: Only exists in the margins of cyberspace, always appears last in Periodic Chart, regardless of the number of elements represented.

Re:Hope its better than the "New Math"

[sam_handelman]

Okay, children, instead of starting you with the chemistry of things you encounter in everyday life, we'll teach you chemistry from the ground up, starting with first principles. Who can tell me how to transform this wave function to be time independent?

Lisa: Finally, a chance to use my linear algebra.

Ralph: Ms. Hoover, I'm scared of the ocean.

P.S. For those of you who weren't around back in the day, there was a movement called the "New Math" where elementary school kids would be taught set & number theory, and other mostly theoretical stuff, before being taught algebra. Please note that I covered my ass and said mostly theoretical.

P.P.S. I haven't read the book myself, but I've heard nothing but excellent things from my chemist friends (I am a comp. biologist) so I ordered it.

Re:bitterness

[TheMatt]

Hmmm, as a theoretical chemistry grad student this does kind of offend me. Does this mean that the Fourier Analysis course I took in the Math department was worthless?

How about all the quantum chemistry courses I have taken? While I agree that I haven't taken Relativistic QM, I feel I have a pretty good grasp of QM for a grad student. Plus, there is all that time I spent hacking GAMESS (a quantum chemistry program) in order to get it to output the data I needed. Wow, I did that without any knowledge of QM...pretty brave.

And, of course, I don't know how to use a computer. The fact I manage Linux and Tru64 boxes is just my delusion. You probably would hate that my institute (JILA) uses an XP1000 for mail serving. Now, it also runs enormous Gaussian and IDL jobs for us, but dammit, it is a mail server too...what a waste.

Wow, I guess I know what a troll is now, don't I?

The Anthropology of Science

[epepke]

I used to do scientific visualization in a mult-disciplinary research instutite. You're pretty spot-on when it comes to what physicists think of chemists.

Chemists, however, think of you as an anal-retentive obsessive-compulsive.

If you're an experimental physicist, the theoretical physicists think of you as some boy to do the grunt work.

If you're a theoretical physicist, the experimental physicists think of you as an airy-fairy bigshot who thinks he's too good to get his hands dirty.

Re:New?

[chrissam]

This book was published in October 2000. It's the "Chemical Evolution" title referenced in the Slashdot article which is from 1991.

Re:About Poor Danny Yee...

[danny]

There is a television in the house, but I hardly ever watch it - maybe an hour a month, if that.

Frankly I'd rather go out to see movies, while televison news and most documentaries are just woeful compared to print resources (at least for what I'm interested in).

Danny.

You left out Technetium...

[freeBill]

...a real element which was named after a web site which hadn't even been invented yet. (Heck, it was named before the Internet had been invented, let alone the World Wide Web.)

...beat...

OK, it was really named after the Greek word for "artificial." I wonder if TechNet.com knows its name means something like "fake."