If we had a program for chemistry like that of WM2D, we could save the world.
If we could click and drag with basic elements, the whole world could begin to test and discover new combinations that could help solve many things.
I belive in a shot time, the chemical industry would be shocked into a new era of home brew chemistry.
Not only could we save the world,but also open doors to new possibilities in discovery.
Is there a program available for this?
Maybe it wont save the world, but it sure would cause some mix up and maybe the patent office would explode with too many chemical patent applications
Working Model for Chemistry?
Moderator: scott
re: Working Model for Chemestry?
Wheeler,
I believe there are such programs used by chemical companies. Sometimes they predict correct results and sometimes they fail.
I believe there are such programs used by chemical companies. Sometimes they predict correct results and sometimes they fail.
re: Working Model for Chemestry?
Thanks Jim_Mich
If compounds were available on a tollbar, and if known reactions were available, the computer could display the results.
If further testing showed nagative. results, More study could be done.
I will try a search and see whats out there.
Thanks
Wheeler
If compounds were available on a tollbar, and if known reactions were available, the computer could display the results.
If further testing showed nagative. results, More study could be done.
I will try a search and see whats out there.
Thanks
Wheeler
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Working Model for Chemestry?
Wheeler...
I am a former chemist and what you were suggesting ALREADY exists...its called "Quantum Mechanics".
The branch of physics known as quantum mechanics is already complete enough to be able to, IN THEORY, predict ALL chemical reactions and the other physical, chemical, electrical, and magnetic properties of matter.
The problem is that to do this, one must set up a long second order partial differential equation (the famous Schroedinger Wave Equation) for EACH electron and nucleus inside of EACH atom that is interacting with other atoms. This equation quickly becomes gigantic in size and then contains so many terms that it becomes what we call "intractable" in mathematics. That is, even with the fastest super computers now available, one can not get a exact solution to the equation that describes a chemical system that will tell one exactly what will happen when two or more atoms come together.
To make the equation "tractable" requires that one start making approximations and, the instant that is done, the accuracy of any predictions the equation makes begins to deteriorate.
Chemistry will, unfortunately, have to remain an "experimental" science for the near future. Yes, computers can help a little, especially when one is trying to analyze the spectra of an unknown compound to try and determine its actual structure, but trying to use them to predict with exactitude what two molecules slamming together in a solution will do is like the PM seeker scribling a few "rough" calculations and then proclaiming "eureka...I've found the secret of PM". But, then again, if a lot of trial and error were not involved in chemistry, a lot of chemists would be unemployed!
ken
I am a former chemist and what you were suggesting ALREADY exists...its called "Quantum Mechanics".
The branch of physics known as quantum mechanics is already complete enough to be able to, IN THEORY, predict ALL chemical reactions and the other physical, chemical, electrical, and magnetic properties of matter.
The problem is that to do this, one must set up a long second order partial differential equation (the famous Schroedinger Wave Equation) for EACH electron and nucleus inside of EACH atom that is interacting with other atoms. This equation quickly becomes gigantic in size and then contains so many terms that it becomes what we call "intractable" in mathematics. That is, even with the fastest super computers now available, one can not get a exact solution to the equation that describes a chemical system that will tell one exactly what will happen when two or more atoms come together.
To make the equation "tractable" requires that one start making approximations and, the instant that is done, the accuracy of any predictions the equation makes begins to deteriorate.
Chemistry will, unfortunately, have to remain an "experimental" science for the near future. Yes, computers can help a little, especially when one is trying to analyze the spectra of an unknown compound to try and determine its actual structure, but trying to use them to predict with exactitude what two molecules slamming together in a solution will do is like the PM seeker scribling a few "rough" calculations and then proclaiming "eureka...I've found the secret of PM". But, then again, if a lot of trial and error were not involved in chemistry, a lot of chemists would be unemployed!
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Working Model for Chemestry?
Its good to know we have a chemist available on the forums
Then to put a compound together and hold data, may not work as easy as I thought.
I think you are saying the atomic matter or combinations may be to infinite.
I did not know that the chemical reactions would change at the quantum level.
Seems like there are many things in chemistry that are still in research.
In Bill Bryson's book (A Short History of Nearly Everything) he said
that the chemical engineers were the last to form.
I can see why now.
Thank you
Wheeler
Then to put a compound together and hold data, may not work as easy as I thought.
I think you are saying the atomic matter or combinations may be to infinite.
I did not know that the chemical reactions would change at the quantum level.
Seems like there are many things in chemistry that are still in research.
In Bill Bryson's book (A Short History of Nearly Everything) he said
that the chemical engineers were the last to form.
I can see why now.
Thank you
Wheeler
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
re: Working Model for Chemistry?
Wheeler I like your idea. I think you will make a good software engineer :) I agree with what Ken had to say having taken a year long of Chemistry in College (of which I remember very little besides the exciting colors obtained in some reactions) However, I must add that I've seen something on TV where scientists were using CAD like programs to piece together complex proteins and visualize their shape and how they match others. (balls and sticks type of models which they use in chemistry classes anyway) This of course would be a higher level model with I'm sure some underlying assumptions, but I belive they are getting some amazing results using these CAD methods, as in finding new cures. As far as Schrodingers equations, my professor in College showed us the results of a program he wrote, the beautiful electron clouds that formed etc.. But to model collisions forget it. We definitely need those quantum chips coming in the near future, or neural networks or something. Even in my field of electromagnetic simulations of macro objects I could use a fast computer. I belive we will never be able to simulate reality completely so its important to understand when we can assume specific things and how those assumptions affect the results.