Talk:Physical chemistry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) Desperately needs expansion! |
|||
 |
This is a candidate for the 1.0 core topics collaboration of the fortnight. Please see that page to support or comment on the nomination. We are working toward a release version of Wikipedia. |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
