Chemistry Books for the Smart?

enzyme asks: "A couple of weeks back, chrisd asked for recommendations on computer books. This made we wonder: What are the great chemistry books? I want to know what books the chemistry geeks recommend! What are good books on chemistry - textbooks, popular science...whatever! Anything that an intelligent person without a PhD in chemistry can comprehend. What can I read to help me understand chemistry - my old chemistry textbooks don't really do this."

Comments

Take them in order

[markbark]

To gain "understanding" take the sciences in order.

1. Physics
2. Chemistry
3. Biology

Think of it this way:
Without physics, there can be no chemistry. Without chemistry, there is no biology

Re:Take them in order

[markbark]

I can understand that order at the high school level.
To really grok most physics problems requires at least passing familiarity with integration and derivation.
(One could argue that Newton/Leibnitz invented/discovered the calculus to deal with some of their more vexing problems)
Coursework attempting to impart an understanding of physics without the use of calculus is about as popular as compulsory military service

Start with some Quantum Mechanics

[rlotun]

Well, since chemistry is ultimately just QED (Quantum Electrodynamics), it'd probably be best to read up on Quantum Mechanics first, for completeness. And it's cool too.

Good PopSci QM books are:
1. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman
2. In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality by John Gribbin
3. Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality: Solving the Quantum Mysteries by John Gribbin
4. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene

More advanced QM books if you are willing to get into it:
1. Principles of Quantum Mechanics by Ramamurti Shankar
2. The Feynman Lectures (really just concentrate on vol. 3)
3. Quantum Mechanics (2 vol.) by Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Bernard Diu, Frank Laloe, and Bernard Dui

I'll leave it to my chemistry friends to fill in the rest from QED on ;-)

There's no right answer

[panurge]

Understanding chemistry is mostly about recognising patterns, and relating them to experience. There are so many patterns and so many interrelations that no textbook can really get far enough into the subject at a general level.

What part of chemistry is it you want to understand?

• Organic or inorganic?
• Synthesis or analysis?
• Industrial or theoretical?

Once you learn a set of patterns, and get a feel for them (like the relations in the periodic table, or the way the properties of organics change as the carbon backbone changes length) it becomes easier to learn new ones. But if you haven't got an objective in mind, it's difficult to understand why it is worth the effort.

More truth then you might think...

[Jerf]

While I suspect the parent was posted mostly in jest, I think there's actually a lot of truth there.

The 'patterns' in chemistry, more so then in any other intro-level science, are buried three or four layers deep, in ways that no approximation can save. To truly understand chemistry requires immense amounts of quantum mechanics and other physics-layer things. Only once these things are understood deeply can chemistry be "derived".

This is in amazingly stark contrast to Physics, where we can teach people "Newtonian physics" and while it's an approximation, it's a good one for most people. Or math, where we don't all start on elliptic equations.

"Chemistry" is like that; it's like trying to start with elliptic equations, or quantum mechanics, or going straight to the moon instead of building up to it. As a result, it's all memorization, rules of thumb, exceptions to the rules of thumb, exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions, and then another large mass of memorization, repeat ad naseum. It's actually to the point where I'm not convinced a whole lot of time should be spent on it in high school or college for non-majors, as unlike physics, very little of chemistry will help you understand the real world, except for the fact that it exists and a few basics. (Unless of course you're going to study it. In which case if you know it's a for-majors-only course, I think it might be possible to organize it much better.)

Re:Not necessarily

[markbark]

Physics does have a place in Chemistry, I readily admit this. But from my (admittedly young) knowledge of Chemistry (I am going into my 2nd year for a Chemistry B.S.), you're gonna have a difficult time trying to find what I personally consider the interesting parts of Chemistry in Physics.

Try looking at it backwards. Don't look for the interesting parts of chemistry in physics, rather look for the interesting parts of physics in chemistry. Poring over and memorizing periodical tables and reaction charts may give you an understanding of how chemistry works, but even the broadest concepts of the underlying physics can give you a better appreciation of why it works.
Therein lies the path to deeper understanding of chemistry, Grasshopper. [grin]

It's kind of like the OSI layering standard.
This message is displayed on your browser after:

1. leaving my machine across a wire (layer 1)
   
2. going thru a switch to the cable modem (layer 2)
   
3. bouncing thru any of a number of devices to get to /. (Layer 3)
   
4. making sure it got there without losing any bits along the way (layer 4)
   
5. setting up a cosy little chat with the OSDF server (layer 5)
   
6. coding/decoding all the ASCII/GIF's/JPG's et al (layer 6)
   
7. and finally, bunging all thru HTML on your browser.
   

Each layer building on the other to make itself understood. A thorough grounding in mathematics gives you the basics for delving into physics. Even the most elementary physics can give you a deeper understanding of chemistry, as can an understanding of chemistry give you a deeper appreciation for the intricacies of biology (although my heart goes out to you when you have to deal with the details of organic chem [grin])