At the American Chemical Society meeting last week J.T. Hynes gave a talk
Some modest proposals for 21st century physical chemists
Here are his three main points.
(1) The most familiar problems/phenomena may in fact not be at all already understood, and can provide fertile areas for discovery;
(2) Just an experiment or a theory because it is 'old' (e.g. of a certain vintage) does not mean it is inferior/wrong despite the lack of novelty and modernity;
(3) Simple, well-constructed analytic models have a significant role to play in comprehending and advancing both theory and experiment.
Unfortunately, I was not at the meeting, but my colleague Seth Olsen was and told me I would have enjoyed the talk. These points certainly resonate with my own views.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The two-state model for spin crossover in organometallics
Previously, I discussed how spin-crossover is a misnomer for organometallic compounds and proposed that an effective Hamiltonian to describe...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro... -
Nitrogen fluoride (NF) seems like a very simple molecule and you would think it would very well understood, particularly as it is small enou... -
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
I am glad to see #3 on the list. Time and time again I have heard the argument that the way of analytical models are giving way to computational approaches alone. I think both are necessary. In particular, an analytical model that is well thought out leads to a deeper understanding of the underpinning physical phenomenon.
ReplyDelete