Talk:Unsolved problems in chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on May 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

General comment: Wiki would benefit if each unsolved problem in chemistry is accompanied by its own article. Currently only 5 out of 10 problems listed have an article associated with it. V8rik 16:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 AfD Result Notice 2 Afd Notice - second time around 3 Here are some Useful links 4 A Suggestion for a Definition 5 Unsourced 6 A Suggestion for a Process for Including an Article 7 Feynmanium

[edit] AfD Result Notice

This article was the subject of an AfD discussion closed on 20 August 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 18:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd Notice - second time around

Unfortunately this article has again be nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in chemistry. Heliumballoon 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here are some Useful links

• 1. Science magazine devoted a whole issue to 125 unsolved puzzles and questions. First 25 [1] Next 100 [2] Here are a few that are relevant to chemistry. What is the structure of water? Researchers continue to tussle over how many bonds each H2O molecule makes with its nearest neighbors. What is the nature of the glassy state? Molecules in a glass are arranged much like those in liquids but are more tightly packed. Where and why does liquid end and glass begin? Are there limits to rational chemical synthesis? The larger synthetic molecules get, the harder it is to control their shapes and make enough copies of them to be useful. Chemists will need new tools to keep their creations growing. Can we predict how proteins will fold? Out of a near infinitude of possible ways to fold, a protein picks one in just tens of microseconds. The same task takes 30 years of computer time.
• 2. [3] CHEMISTRY: Polymers Without Beginning or End Tom McLeish (20 September 2002) Science 297 (5589), 2005. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1076810] "Natural polymer molecules dominate biology, while artificial polymers are used as plastics or emulsifiers in countless modern products. Many characteristics of their crystalline, glassy, and fluid states can be traced back to the special properties generated by the ends of the molecules. But what would happen if there were no ends? What would be the properties of polymers composed entirely of closed loops?.......The new polymers may not immediately result in new, competitive products, but they stand every chance of clarifying some unsolved puzzles of polymer science.
• 3. [4] Chemistry: Enhanced: Putting Molecules Behind Bars Steven C. Zimmerman (25 April 1997) Science 276 (5312), 543. [DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5312.543] One of the most fundamental unsolved problems in chemistry is predicting, based solely on its molecular structure, how a molecule will pack in the solid state....
• 4. [5] presented here [6] Unsolved Problems in Nanotechnology: Chemical Processing by Self-Assembly - Matthew Tirrell - Departments of Chemical Engineering and Materials, Materials Research Laboratory, California NanoSystems Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara. The title of this paper says it all. It was presented at the department of Chemical Engineering at The Ohio State University - Centennial of the Department’s founding - April 24-25, 2003 Heliumballoon 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is great stuff, finally some constructive thinking! If the articles survive we will put it to use. V8rik 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Suggestion for a Definition

Well how about either one of the following:

1. That which in the scientific literature is seen as being an major unsolved problem.
2. The frontier of chemistry (what it is that people are trying to do but have not done yet) - eg the use of gold nano particles to deliver drugs.
3. Conceptual problems where empirical results contradict theory or areas where one theory contradicts another.
4. Areas where we do not understand why something occurs empirically (we have no theory at all). eg Why do fluorines have such unusual properties?

• All arguments would need to be justified by quoting the appropriate literature. So one could either show that the literature says 'X' is a major unsolved problem. Or one shows that the literature says that one of the other categories apply and that the case is not trivial. Thus it would be recommended that this is something that would be left to practicing scientists. Heliumballoon 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced

I've tagged this article as unsourced for the time being until some criteria is agreed upon and sourcing is implemented (pending the outcome of the AfD of course).--Isotope23 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please consult Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, the references you can find in the respective specialist pages, for references on homochirality see the page homochirality and so on, it is that simple. Regarding NPOV, also see Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines: if you think there is NPOV then where is the bias? please specify what you find is controversial in this article then perhaps we can remedy it. V8rik 19:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag may have been overkill... I've removed it. Per your comment on references though, I don't think expecting a ref in the homochirality article to reference the contention in this article that "What is the origin of homochirality in amino acids and sugars?" is a "persistent questions with deep implications" that should be included on this page is the optimal way to present this. That should be attributed on this page, even if that attribution is simply taking a source from homochirality and incoporating it here.--Isotope23 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I plan on going through all the listed problems and either sourcing them or deleting them if sources cannot be found. Heliumballoon 22:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be fantastic. I have no problem with WP:BOLD removal of that tag once sourcing is undertaken.--Isotope23 00:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have found and added some sources and I will be adding more. Heliumballoon 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Suggestion for a Process for Including an Article

1. Provide at least 2 peer reviewed articles that explain what the problem is.

2. Provide some evidence (at least 2 different sources) that the problem is not marginal and has significant impact.

This can be done by either:

• a. Showing that peer reviewed articles implictly or explicitly consider the problem to be important.
• b. Show the above by means of a textbook or other recognized scientific book.
• c. Show that the problem is listed as being non trivial on an authoritative website. e.g. the American Chemcial Society's website
• d. Giving details of several organizations/groups committed to solving the problem. e.g. Many groups are working on the protein folding problem.

3. Include a least a paragraph explaining the problem.

4. Include an explanation as to why the problem is important.

5. Categorize the problem as:

• a. An empirical question or anomaly

• b. A lack of understanding in theory

• c. An inability to use theory to predict what happens in practice.

Heliumballoon 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I couldn't disagree more with this proposal.

1. More than once I have explained that discussion of the problem is reserved for the specialist page. There is no need to repeat the whole origin of life page on this page. That would be unnecessary duplication of material.
2. It is no where implied that the unsolved problems are important to the science as a whole. Many unsolved problems are restricted to some kind of chemical research niche. It is not like the article List of important publications in chemistry that I would consider for deletion because the phrase important is very NPOV.
3. I must again stress here that it is really not difficult to assess an unsolved problem with objective criteria. Observe chemical phenomenon A, collect publications offering an explanation for A. In the event of discrepancies or conflicting explanations mark them as unsolved.
4. Publications will not always conclude that a problem is unsolved. rather an explanation is offered by which according to the authors the unsolved problem is no longer a problem. only occasionally as in the example of the On water reaction the authors present observations and plainly state they are unable to explain it.

V8rik 19:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All I was trying to do was to achieve consensus after the Afd process. People kept on wanting some kind of criteria for inclusion on the page. They went on and on on wanting to know what the difference between a minor question and something that belonged on the main page. They used that as an argument for deletion. This page has been nominated twice. They deleted the biology page this time. I don't want it to happen again and was trying to address their concerns - thats all. Heliumballoon 21:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Heliumballoon, many thanks for all the work you have been doing to save this article. It is a shame it was nominated twice. Yes, we should have a discussion about criteria on this page but I felt that including this section in the article itself was not appropriate. I think we should also try to police this article and make sure there is at least one reference in the article itself or the satellite page. For example I have not been able to convince user AWeishaupt (see below) to respect the fact tag. Perhaps you can. V8rik 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feynmanium

I don't agree with my last little edit being reverted. I kept the explanation in there, and it's still given in detail in the Feynmanium article, too. I just worded it a bit better.

AWeishaupt 04:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi AWeishaupt, you removed the {{Fact}} tag and also upset the layout that's why I did revert. the issue here is that especially for this article people expect a reference or citation with every unsolved problem either on this page or in its specialist page. For the Feynmanium problem no citation exists in Wiki. My question to you is: do you think you can find a citation and in what timeframe? V8rik 20:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)