Talk:List of unsolved problems in chemistry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problems aren't big enough[edit]

General comment: unlike physics or math chemistry focus is very narrow. You only have an order of magnitude of length (Angstrom to nanometer) to play with. Chemistry was an infant two centuries ago. By now it is pretty much solved. The origin of life is the only significant question in the field. Other questions are either too shallow (an you make compound A in X% yield) or solved with sufficient accuracy (what is the contribution of hyper-conjugation to...) or belong to physics (can you make a heptaneutron?) or are limited by computer science (protein folding modelling). This article should make it cleat that unlike physics and math chemistry more or less ran out of problems.

General comment[edit]

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)[reply]

AfD Result Notice[edit]

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)[reply]

Afd Notice - second time around[edit]

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

Here are some Useful links[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

A Suggestion for a Definition[edit]

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?
  • Chemistry is pretty much solved by now. The origin of Life is the only decent scientific problem.
  • 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)[reply]

Unsourced[edit]

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

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

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 implicitly 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
You write: Publications will not always conclude that a problem is unsolved. Then how will we? You're asking Wikipedia editors to exercise research-level quality assessment and taste in chemistry. The result will be a mess. And indeed, it is. 89.217.31.142 (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Feynmanium[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

More general comments (re: "This page is pretty messed up.")[edit]

This page is pretty messed up. I realize this is a highly controversial topic, but I can say some things pretty reasonably. The norbornyl controversy is over. Hyperbonding is not a mystery. Other things aren't even clearly a problem. Faster than diffusion enzymes have been attributed to superclusters for decades; it's not clear the alpha effect is real. The structure of water? Monte Carlo simulations on TIP4P-type water get the boiling point pretty close. They're still off by thirty degrees or so, but is that really a key scientific problem in chemistry? The heavy elements thing is arguably physics. Bond rotation in ethane is, and always will be, an endless debate whose conclusion depends on how the problem is defined. The "on water" effect is a bit dubious, is something a bit odd like the purported "microwave effect." Some things are good--the energy crisis, superconductors, catalytic processes. This article doesn't seem very encyclopedia-like at all. It deals with what isn't known, rather than what is known. It's interesting to read and has some educational value, but its accuracy seems to be problematic and certainly debatable. Eugene Kwan (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with everything Eugene said (although I don't share the skepticism on the on-water effect). The 'organic chemistry' problems might be to do with carbon-containing molecules, but many of them will be studied and perhaps eventually solved by people who are not organic chemists. Perhaps it is just me, but I would not call several of these unsolved problems in organic chemistry, which is what I came here looking for. Organic chemistry is what organic chemists work on.
If anything still exists of the norbornyl cation controversy, it's tangential. The sizeable challenge I expected from the page title has been abated now (I suddenly notice EK signed this in 2011! If it was solved in 2011, it's certainly solved now.). In fact, I'm going to delete it, and I guess you can put it back if anyone sees any good reason to. 98.222.61.249 (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep talking (I just signed in; still me), but really - if someone 'solves' the alpha effect, it will not change my life as an organic chemist. It may affect physical or computational chemists significantly, but not me. There are huge problems in organic chemistry, such as enantioselective functionalization of unactivated C–H bonds, or fast modular synthesis of terpenoids. Just two examples. FlowerFaerie087 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Echo Eugene's comments. Note that a further problem inherent to this type of article are its datedness (unsolved as of when?), and the latent interpretive problem of "conclusiveness" (has it been solved, and if so, when, and by whom?). Consider the CH activation problem—is it completely, or only partially solved? And in either case, who is to be credited for the extent that there is a solution? With regard to organic chemistry, the issue of importance also rears its head: technically, every as-yet unsynthesized natural product is an unsolved problem worthy of work (which the pop science writers remain mostly, blissfully unaware until the problem is solved)—which of these are worthy of being listed? Perhaps only those being pursued, as yet unsuccessfully? (See again, the article datedness problem.)
Perhaps the best that can be accomplished in an article like this is (1) simply to list those "problems" that appear in published compilations on this thematic subject, that are relevant to chemistry (which requires only limited WP editor interpretation), adding to those specifically stated, individual and citable problems that appear in other articles, as one-offs, then (2) to scour the literature and online commentary for reliable commentary on these articles (and so on the developing lists—so that at least the communicated perceptions of experts on the limitations of the published lists are presented). Any other approach, including the seeming current ongoing one, of picking and choosing of problems by editors, is WP:OR and will lead to a further incomplete, periodically off-focus hodgepodge of information that is neither verifiable (with regard to its status as being important), up-to-date, or broadly held by the true experts in the field.
Finally, I would note that the lack of criteria for inclusion/removal of "problems", and, consequently, the existing scope and uniformity of content and quality of this article are such that I can think of no one to whom I can recommend it. No one. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree.
The entire concept of this article is one big exercise in original research. To be in encyclopedia, the problems must come from broadly accepted, published compilations, where the comparisons and value judgements have already been made.
Wikipedia editors are trying to cobble together something here that lies far beyond their capabilities.
In this case this often-heard claim is not just rhetoric. It is quite real !!! 178.38.108.161 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Mpemba effect[edit]

It should read instead "is there a Mpemba effect" or even "why don't we ever, ever observe the Mpemba effect" and then there are thousands of such fringe problems. Plus it's unsourced. 89.217.31.142 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted septaria question[edit]

Could be interesting but it's really minerology or something. Also, there was no source. 89.217.31.142 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of unsolved problems in chemistry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of unsolved problems in chemistry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied content[edit]

Copied the unsolved biochem sections from the chem article to the bio article. Jamgoodman (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3 quick comments[edit]

1. At the moment google suggests "chemistry" as the #5 auto-complete for "unsolved problems in..." (ahead of biology). That seems to suggest that people find it an interesting question. 2. Is it perhaps time to archive some of the very old talk topics which clearly did not gain traction? 3. Would the need to characterize most chemical compounds qualify as a major problem? (https://web.archive.org/web/20230828034000/https://scitechdaily.com/peeling-back-the-chemical-unknown-scientists-are-on-the-hunt-for-the-other-99-percent/) DKEdwards (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_unsolved_problems_in_chemistry&oldid=1201100817"