July 12, 2020, 08:24:53 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting

### Topic: Canonical chemistry  (Read 24862 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Juan R.

• Chemist
• Full Member
• Posts: 148
• Mole Snacks: +24/-3
• Gender:
##### Canonical chemistry
« on: August 24, 2004, 07:14:47 AM »
Hello,

I am Juan R. González-Álvarez

I am launching a new revolutionary view of chemistry. The objective is develop a basic theory for chemistry but far from the usual physical chemistry.

Physical chemistry copies physics. Mi principal aim is focus in traditional chemical principles.

The theory is highly advanced. A basic background on usual physical chemistry is not sufficient. For example in the quantum version of canonical chemistry, even the axiomatic theory by Lindblad is only a simplified case of our more general equation based in the theory of chemistry.

I hope to launch officially canonical chemistry in one or two months. I have sent a letter to nature (I hope for publication) and also a pre-presentation to Chemistry International.

All my work is done outside of official funding.

Let me introduce the reply of Ilya Prigogine to my last message (before launching canonical chemistry)

"The Questions that you ask are very difficult"

Can canonical chemistry solve that difficult questions?

I hope that this forum can sited some non-technical work mine and questions.
The first canonical scientist.

#### Juan R.

• Chemist
• Full Member
• Posts: 148
• Mole Snacks: +24/-3
• Gender:
##### Launching canonical chemistry
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2004, 07:12:47 AM »

Canonical chemistry is not only a theory of matter; it is also a new philosophy inspired in fascinating ancient chemical and alchemical views.

If you opine that chemistry is a cuisine, a metaphor, a qualitative semi-science, or only a “stupid” branch of applied physics, then you are not interested in canonical chemistry.

At contrary, if you want to see how “all” from the big bang to heat transport, passing by molecular chemical reactions (of course!), viruses diseases, particle physics reactions, ecological or sociological models can be explained in terms of mechanisms based in a generalization of the 20th century concept of chemical processes. If you opine that Santa Fe Institute research in complexity is, in general, only “garbage”, check our revolutionary chemical theory. Note that I said “20th” because in ancient chemistry literature heat transport was considered a kind of chemical process, for example. In fact, chemists as Boyle or Newton thought that universe was a huge chemical system and God an alchemist!

If you love chemical views and you want to see how experimentally verified generalizations of Schrödinger equation (e.g. Redfield, Lax, and others) are derived from canonical chemistry equations more the adequate chemical mechanism or if you love high-level mathematics and opines that quantum field theory is not sufficient for you, then you would choose canonical chemistry. Many quantum chemists have claimed that structural theory of organic chemists was only a metaphor. Do you know that physicist begin to show that the concept of molecular structure is strictly outside of an Schrödinger equation? They have shown that the Schrödinger evolution for isolated molecules is valid only as an approximation to a Caldeira/Legget evolution even in the interstellar medium!

If you are a theoretician interested in chemical reactions, and S-matrix theory is not sufficient for you, please develop advanced models from our “thermomaster” equation (manuscript in preparation).

If you are a chemical engineer looking for an “umbrella” theory of transport processes, note that canonical chemistry generalize molecular dynamics, kinetic theory or the well-known TIP between others. Do you know that I based my TCL technique for quantum memory effects in the “old” Cattaneo hyperbolic equation?

If you believe that recent Prigogine generalization of quantum theory for irreversible and chaotic systems is interesting, please to discover how canonical chemistry introduces several interesting corrections to the math and concepts of Brussels’ theory (e.g. our crucial reinterpretation of the “collapse” of the Hilbert space structure).

I am sorry to say this but canonical chemistry modifies many incorrect views of traditional physical chemical literature. In my 12-pages overview article “Canonical chemistry education, an unified program for the 21st century”, I critique peer-review journals and introduce basic comments on several wrong aspects of chemical education as, for instance, that the second law is not “that” one read in usual chemical thermodynamics or physical chemistry textbooks. I do NOT use inexact differentials for heat (I write dQ) and this was a surprise for many physical chemists, please see the last book by Prigogine and Kondepudi for more advanced formulations of thermodynamics. Note that the thermodynamics developed from canonical chemistry is more advanced still!

I am thinking to send the above-cited “heated” article to the Journal of Chemical Education, but if this new forum attracts to many young chemists, and I receive a sufficient number of pleas for post here material, then I could site it here. The objective (see point 5 below) is that all chemists receive an improved preparation.

Please if my ideas are bad for you, then critique it rudely. If you think that my work is interesting then correct my possible mistakes and divulgate the corrected work.

The first that one would notice is that the actual status of chemistry is very unpleasant. I introduce next part of the letter that I sent to Nature some days ago:

Since the brave Nature Editorial defending to the chemical science (“A discipline buried by success,” Nature 411, 399; 2001) and the News Feature by David Adam (“What’s in a name,” Nature 411, 408–409; 2001), the status of chemistry and chemists is even poor. An example was the plans for closed highly rated chemistry groups (“Max Planck plans double blow to chemistry,” Nature 422, 105; 2003).

Nature often notices the innumerable plans of chemists for addressing the problems facing our discipline (e.g. “Chemists seek image overhaul,” Nature 425, 227; 2003). However, recommendations for new funding for centres in nuclear and radiochemistry have been ignored. Moreover, two prestigious university chemistry departments (King’s College and Queen Mary College, both in London) were forced to close recently –following two early closed (Salford and De Montfort, UK)–. The same fate looks likely for the department of chemistry at the University of Wales, Swansea. At least other two, Dundee and Nottingham Trent, are currently under threat. In Spain, the fate looked no better than the rest of world. I am a young chemist, and all my previous attempts for achieving an adequate research position in chemical science have been neglected.

But things can change this year! The launching of a new revolutionary program –namely canonical chemistry– would put back to chemistry at the central point of modern science. The canonical program deals with scientific, educative, epistemological, and historical topics of the chemical science.

Some basic objectives are next summarized:

1) Modernization of the general view of chemistry.
2) To reinforce the central character of chemistry in modern theoretical science.
3) Development and application of a sophisticated unified theoretical framework and its related mathematical methods.
4) To recover the true history of the central science, emphasizing the important contributions of chemistry, both past and present ones. Retrieval of the ancient contemplative side of chemistry thanks to the revolutionary philosophical perspectives opened with our theoretical research.
5) Modernization and systematization of the current chemical curricula.
The first canonical scientist.

#### Juan R.

• Chemist
• Full Member
• Posts: 148
• Mole Snacks: +24/-3
• Gender:
##### What is canonical chemistry
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2004, 08:26:27 AM »
Please I cannot reply with rigor and extension to general questions as What is canonical chemistry?

If you send me some message or post some question in this forum, please be more specific.

I believe that one complete presentation of canonical chemistry would need of more than 10*20 pags. In fact, I am preparing a serie of research articles about all this.

In this forum I could, if chemical forums agree, reply to some specific questions about canonical chemistry program. But I believe that first I would launch officially the program, including research articles. I hope launching it very soon.

As said I sent Nature letter and a basic feature article to CI, now I would submit the following "viewpoint" article about failures on chemical education.

Some advanced literature would be useful for understanding canonical chemistry.

Forget usual manuals on quantum mechanics or quantum chemistry! Read books/articles about dissipative quantum theory, Prigogine's "dynamics of correlations", projection operator methods, etc.

Forget traditional manuals on chemical thermodynamics, read Kondepudi and Prigogine "Modern thermodynamics" and more advanced books, for example "Rational Extended Thermodynamics".

Usual manuals on spectroscopy or chemical kinetics are good ones, but need be improved by canonical chemistry, especially in basic theory.

In general a course on usual statistical mechanics (equilibrium) is not suficient. I recomend the easy book Non equilibrium statistical mechanics by Zwanzig as a first step.

:red_bandana:
The first canonical scientist.

#### AWK

• Retired Staff
• Sr. Member
• Posts: 7397
• Mole Snacks: +516/-86
• Gender:
##### Re:Canonical chemistry
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2004, 03:14:17 AM »
Why not send it to www.chemweb.com as preprint.  I am sure that HYLE (international journal
for philosphy of chemistry) is pertinent to your subject.
AWK

#### ssssss

• Guest
##### Re:Canonical chemistry
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2004, 03:46:33 AM »
So will canonical chemistry disprove some of the models and equations of chemistry or it will more generalize the existing theorems of chemistry.

#### Juan R.

• Chemist
• Full Member
• Posts: 148
• Mole Snacks: +24/-3
• Gender:
##### Acknowledgement
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2004, 07:32:02 AM »
First, I would thank your interest in the new ideas that I am launching. I believe that canonical chemistry could be a good opportunity for turning the terrible status of current chemistry (I recommend the reading of Nature references above cited: The ENDING of departments and centers, neglecting of funding, decreasing in number of students and PhD, decreasing by the first time on the number of ACS members, neglect of chemical contributions to science and society, etc.). In 19th century, chemistry was considered the queen of sciences. Could that status be recovered in this new century? If we want see to a glamorous chemistry, with chemists being respected by society, we cannot hope that physicists and biologist were highlighting chemical contributions as being done by them (See Nature vol 411).

I also thank the possibility that Chemicalforums has opened for a forum about a “renaissance” of chemistry as the most central and basic of sciences. I would say that Mitch suggested to me to write here about this new fascinating and revolutionary possibility. I am especially indebted to him.

:red_bandana:
The first canonical scientist.

#### Juan R.

• Chemist
• Full Member
• Posts: 148
• Mole Snacks: +24/-3
• Gender:
##### Chemweb, Hyle, and canonical chemistry
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2004, 07:35:36 AM »

Hi “AWK”

I submitted some material to CPS. After of some time, I had problems with my affiliation to University of Vigo, and my work was rejected for preprint. However, the problems were rapidly solved (I thank the interest of James Weeks, Chemistry Preprint Server Co-ordinator) and I continued to submit some material to chemweb whereas continued my research. However, the chemistry preprint (2000-2004) was forced to close!!!!! As a member, I received the official communication (18 May 2004). Now I cannot submit new articles, neither modify/alter the previous preprints.

“Hyle” is a good journal for the philosophical part that arises of my work. For example, from canonical chemistry we can derive quantum mechanics as a special case. Moreover, my work introduces strong generalizations of theories of physics as “advanced” as string theory (the most advanced theory of fundamental physics). This breaks the usual hierarchical interpretation of sciences. Now physics is NOT the most fundamental of sciences with chemistry as an “applied” branch of it. The situation is more “horizontal”, with chemistry as a proper science, outside of the shadow of physics. Of course, this opens a new epistemological interpretation of science hierarchy. The journal “Foundations of chemistry” is also good.

But the main problem is with the publication of research articles. I have again problems of affiliation. Moreover, some high-level journals support their activities introducing standard publication charges to authors. An example is $100 per article plus$100 for per journal page. The journal where chemist Pauling and chemist Zewail, between others, published part of their initial works requests $55 per page and an article charge of$20 per article, with a page charge of $150 for each page in excess of 12 pages. I communicated with its editor. Donald H. Levy said: “We will consider all papers on their scientific merits regardless of the position or academic background of the author”. Fortunately, they valuate just the work and not who do it; others request an adequate affiliation first! But my second research article, where I show more detail about canonical chemistry and show how quantum transport or the master equation of particle physics are special cases of our basic equations has 20 pages. Note that I do not receive funding or grants for supporting those very elevated costs! I also have great problems with the peer-review of usual scientific journals. Many revolutionary works were rejected for publication or rejected by chemical community (See above cited article about canonical education), For example, Zewail’s work was rejected by chemists, but now he won a Nobel Prize for Chemistry. His fascinating work, revolutionary “only” in the field of transitions states, lasers, and all that, led intact over the “90%” of chemistry and all of physics. Imagine the reject of my ideas if I claim for a revolution on a “70%” of both!! Moreover, my work is multidisciplinary, I am working in relativity, scattering, quantum theory, thermodynamics, statistics, math, cosmochemistry and astrochemistry, adsorption kinetics, philosophy, ecology, biophysics, basic epistemological questions of chemistry (such as definition of chemical reaction), etc. In a future, I want address the problem of definition of atoms (Bader def. is not very convincing for me), computation, applied laser chemistry, engineering models for efficient transport, and others. It is very difficult for me to publish in dozens of journals, and would be difficult for people (specially students) to recollect all my work, even if were published! I see also a problem of time; the time of appearing is much more large for revolutionary theories. Once, an article appeared in 1957 in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, 25 years after it was initially submitted! Do you know that the law of conservation of energy was rejected for publication in a journal of physics, and then resubmitted to a journal of chemistry edited by Liebig and Wöhler? Unfortunately, that was in the past (when chemistry was in the cutting-edge side of physics); now many referees have a more “closed mind” and consider that all of fundamental chemistry is already known. In fact, the previous manuscript of the theory have received more interest from some physicists that from chemists. In my first research article (posted as preprint at chemweb), a famous chemist said that I “would” be wrong. Note that he said not exactly in that: “Perhaps the referees of the journal to which you submitted this article will point out the error in your discussion.” A recognized specialist (physicist), working with equations “similar” to mine, said, “I like your approach... and that use of your extension seems to work for mesoscopic systems where it may not be justified by Keizer’s original thinking. However, we found long ago that the fluctuation theory worked down to the angstrom level and could give results in agreement with neutron scattering. Thus your extension may be valid for related reasons.” Recently, a group of four celebrated investigators of the Research School of Chemistry in cooperation with other investigator has published a sound paper with the claim of experimental violation of the second law for small systems. As said in my first article, they understood incorrectly the evolution of the small system, because they used “19th century” thermodynamics, but we are at the 21st century! The claim is incorrect; two or three specialists (physicists) have already published comments on Wang et al. paper. I have checked the fifth version of celebrated manual on physical chemistry by Levine and one can read a WRONG presentation of the law. Even Wang et al. claim of that the second law is violated in small chemical systems appears as obvious one! Other specialist (physicist) said me: “I agree with you that ‘experimental demonstration of violation of the second law’ is only in the title of the paper by Wang et al.” Has been 20th century theoretical chemistry somewhat an “archaic” field? Is the usual chemical education adequate? Imagine that you (perhaps a student or young researcher) read Levine or other manual, and after you publish a research paper as that of Wang et al. and physicists show that you are completely wrong because you are learned “archaic” topics. It appears clear that canonical chemistry is needed for the above-introduced 5) objective. Now, the manuscript about thermodynamics has been enlarged and improved with further research. I even received (March 2004) a formal invitation for participating in an international conference about the topic (but the lack of funding and affiliation...). Of course, I am not saying that the work was perfect. I simply say that when more revolutionary is a work more rejection one receives. Young chemist interested in nanothermodynamics (“senior” academics have claimed that thermodynamics is only a macroscopic science) would check my own work on the topic and see if it is useful for understanding the thermal properties of small chemical systems. In fact, the chemist Stuart Schreiber has said in public that one of the problems of current (20th century) chemistry was the attitude of some senior academics. Those senior academic with “closed minds” have ignored some emerging areas of chemistry and would reject (I am sure) canonical chemistry because is too novel for them. This is a great problem; fortunately, young people have minds that are more “open”. Note that canonical chemistry is even more revolutionary that the new quantum mechanics developed recently by the chemist Ilya Prigogine. In fact, during some time Gonzalo Ordonez (Ilya Prigogine Center for Studies in Statistical Mechanics and Complex Systems and International Solvay Institutes for Physics and Chemistry) and I look for a mathematical link between my theoretical ideas and Brussels theories. We never find it. After of a new recent research, I found that canonical chemistry cannot be reduced to Brussels theory, because one needs to modify the so-called Liouville equation. Canonical chemistry is more general. All this is directly inspired in chemistry! This is fascinating! Prigogine said in his last book “The end of certainty”, that physicist were always very hostile with his work on a new physics; work mainly “inspired” in his previous work in chemistry (Nobel Prize for chemistry 1977). He did none direct contribution to string theory and mathematically his new theory is very similar to the own of Dirac, Gamow, Poincare, Gelfand, Bohm, and others (for example he “complements” the usual Liouville equation by a set of markovian equations based in his novel non-unitary operator lambda). Simply imagine the reject of canonical chemistry by the same physicists! We substitute directly the basic equation of advanced quantum mechanics by a rate equation somewhat similar to the chemical equation for a bimolecular reaction A + B = C + D but with a revolutionary vectorial stoichiometry in Liouville space. I am founding a new independent Center for supporting this research and for posting this new view of chemistry, including manuals and articles on canonical chemistry. Moreover, it is an objective of the center to facilitate free access to both educative and viewpoint articles. Now chemical students can access only to journals “sited” in the library of their university! For example, when I was a student in the University of Vigo I could not access to articles of Journal of Chemical Education prior to 1990 aprox. :red_bandana: The first canonical scientist. #### Juan R. • Chemist • Full Member • Posts: 148 • Mole Snacks: +24/-3 • Gender: ##### Canonical chemistry and current theorems « Reply #7 on: August 30, 2004, 07:37:43 AM » Hi “ssssss” Interesting questions! There is a mixture. For example, our advanced research (named QRD) shows that Dirac relativistic equation is totally false (it is only a “metaphor”). Of course, one can show that in some restricted situations (for example calculations of relativistic energy spectra for atoms or molecules) both equations agree “numerically” (this is the reason of that the equation appears to be correct). However, our theory is applicable to situations where Dirac equation offers us the wrong answers. Note that I said numerically. This is because Dirac was forced to introduce the trick of his “hole-theory” for justifying the empirically observed stability of hydrogen atom. Note that practically all relativistic quantum chemistry literature has assumed that Dirac equation is correct!! This is a sign of the poor status of current theoretical chemistry. Many textbooks on statistical mechanics says you that statistical ensembles are a “coarse grained” description of dynamical systems. This is not true (usual “proofs” based in ergodic theory are not correct ones), moreover, see that the ensembles simply are postulated in usual presentation. That is, there is not possibility for deriving them from an underling theory, and this has impeded during decades the formulation of a necessary nonequilibrium statistical mechanics. Our theory offers an answer to last Zwanzig’s question of why the empirically known equilibrium ensembles work. They are not “coarse grained” descriptions of some more fundamental, i.e. “dynamical one”; they are stationary states of our basic equations that generalize dynamics (this is the reason of that ensembles cannot be derived from dynamics). In this case the equilibrium ensembles of usual theory are correct ones, and canonical chemistry only say us why they are. Moreover, outside of equilibrium, canonical chemistry could provide the correct form for nonequilibrium ensembles. I have not explored completely this field still, but basic work is done. I need time! Schrodinger equation and the second law of thermodynamics are generalized for instance. (See preliminary comments about the second law in my above-cited article about canonical education). Take now the equations of chemical kinetics and Arrhenius law k = A exp(-E/kT). I read in Masel’s book on chemical kinetics and catalysis that there are many examples of “non-chemical” systems that follow the law; e.g. plants, bacteria, crickets, the walk of ants, etc. Why? Canonical chemistry offers us the answer. I generalize the “traditional” (20th century) concept of chemical process to “each” process where “matter changes”; I include changes on position! e.g. A(here) -> A(there) can be studied as an unimolecular reaction of kind A -> B, with these novel equations. For instance, a classical model of mathematical ecology inspired in chemical reactions is the predator-prey model LV. A + X1 -> 2 X1 X1 + X2 -> 2 X2 X2 -> B Where X1 is the PREY and X2 is the PREDATOR (are not just chemical molecules inside a biological organism as in biochemical models!). Models of this kind have been launched by biologist, physicists, and ecologists, but mainly ignored by own chemists!!! How many manuals on chemical kinetics introduce “non-chemical” models of this kind? In Foundations of Chemistry 2001, 3, 33-53, Niall Shanks writes, “But the chemical sciences do not merely provide an understanding of the molecular underpinnings of biological phenomena. In the last two decades, chemical systems (based on substrates very different from those found in typical biological systems) have come to be used as dynamical models for the study of biological systems.” Shanks adds, “In this essay I examine the ways in which the Belousov-Zhabotinsky (BZ) reaction is being used by biologists to model a variety of biological systems and processes. The BZ reaction is characterized as a functional model of biological phenomena.” Canonical chemistry generalizes these models and claim that “all” can be studied as a chemical system (this is a mathematical version of alchemical views). I studied chemistry at the University of Vigo and none professor said to me that chemical models could be applied to other “non-chemical” systems as big bang or heat transfer. However, I know that BZ models and similar ones, including chaos and others advanced topics were thought in courses of marine sciences; during some time I was a member of a group of marine biogeochemistry at IIM (CSIC) and I knew to both marine scientist and students. Those above systems, “chemical” in the language of canonical chemistry (Note that an objective of canonical chemistry is formulate a theory of “all”, point 2 above), can be modeled with the equations of canonical chemistry when one writes the correct “mechanism”. Moreover, Arrhenius law is introduced “by hand” in usual presentations of chemical kinetics; Arrhenius is a theorem for a well-defined class of processes in canonical chemistry!! Conclusion, canonical chemistry disproves, generalizes, and maintains previous theoretical topics of chemistry. “Senior” academics could try to said me that a colony of ants is not a chemical system. This is true, it is not a chemical system from a 20th century view, somewhat before Wöhler work, the predominant scientific view was that humans and other living organism possessed a non-physical (“vital”) force that allowed living organism to synthesize organic compounds. Now we see both organic and inorganic compounds as two kinds of the general group of chemical compounds. Now “organic” is also chemistry but before Wöhler... In his last book, “Modern thermodynamics (from heat engines to dissipative structures)” Prigogine introduces the basic of his theory on dissipative structures as the existence of bifurcations due to instabilities. In the figure 20.5 you can see an example of application of ideas of his chemical theory to social insects as ants. Canonical chemistry studies directly “each” system of universe as a “generalized chemical system”. In a sense, the relationship between “generalized chemical systems”, “non-chemical systems”, and “usual chemical systems” is as the previous relationship between “chemical”, “organic”, and “inorganic” in Wöhler’s epoch: Inorganic + organic = chemical Usual chemical systems + “non-chemical” systems = “generalized chemical systems”. Chemistry is an open science; chemistry is fantastic! :red_bandana: The first canonical scientist. #### Juan R. • Chemist • Full Member • Posts: 148 • Mole Snacks: +24/-3 • Gender: ##### Re:Canonical chemistry « Reply #8 on: September 07, 2004, 08:35:15 AM » I have sent a copy of the official letter of the launching of canonical chemistry to more than 30 scientific societies, news services, organizations, and others. Now I am waiting for reply. Juan R. The first canonical scientist. #### Mitch • General Chemist • Administrator • Sr. Member • Posts: 5294 • Mole Snacks: +376/-2 • Gender: • "I bring you peace." -Mr. Burns ##### Re:Canonical chemistry « Reply #9 on: September 08, 2004, 01:37:41 AM » I hope it goes well. Do you have a website we can link to? Or do you still need webspace? Most Common Suggestions I Make on the Forums. 1. Start by writing a balanced chemical equation. 2. Don't confuse thermodynamic stability with chemical reactivity. 3. Forum Supports LaTex #### ssssss • Guest ##### Re:Canonical chemistry « Reply #10 on: September 08, 2004, 02:06:04 AM » I hope it goes well. Do you have a website we can link to? Or do you still need webspace? Yeah Mr.Juan do you have your website?If yes just submit your link on this site.If no why dont you get one,it will be really helpful to you,indeed you can put your important Articles etc on your site which you need to publish in various leading Scientific journals as it will be rather Cheaper i Suppose. #### Juan R. • Chemist • Full Member • Posts: 148 • Mole Snacks: +24/-3 • Gender: ##### Re:Canonical chemistry « Reply #11 on: September 10, 2004, 06:22:09 AM » Hi “ssssss”, Thanks by your comments. Let me only a remark. I believe that my work is important. I think this because I can compare it with others works in recent literature. Of course, I also think that other people would say if I am wrong or correct. Hi Mitch, How are you? Thanks again by your continuous interest and support! At this moment, I have received none official reply. Moreover, it appears that my letter “Canonical chemistry program” to Nature will be not published. I send other “Non-official science, the PhD versus non-PhD dichotomy” today... Website is ready, but only off-line! I am breaking innumerable government and bureaucratic difficulties. I said “I hope to launch officially canonical chemistry in one or two months.” I think that the following week I will know if the founding of the Center dedicated to canonical chemistry is either possible or impossible. I recommend the reading of recent “You don’t need a licence (or PhD) to use your brain” (Nature 430, 965, 2004). That is completely true in mi own case. I am not “Dr. González” and then “I do not have a licence to perform science”. It is not only a question of website. I (as the rest of scientists) need funding or gifts for advanced research. I cannot pay, of my own money, advanced books that I need “Handbook of Molecular Physics and Quantum Chemistry” with a prize of$1,200, for instance. Thanks to my first scientific work in mesoscopic thermodynamics, I received a formal invitation to the conference "Frontiers of Quantum and Mesoscopic Thermodynamics" 26-29 July 2004, Prague, Czech Republic. Satellite of the 20th General Conference of the EPS Condensed Matter Division 19 - 23 July Prague 2004 but I neglected the invitation because I have not money or adequate affiliation. I have not access to several advanced scientific databases. I cannot pay $300 or$400 in references cited in my articles each time that I am preparing a manuscript, etc. I cannot do some advanced calculation with my simple PC. Computational chemists and physicists, at universities and research centers, can use very-expensive workstations and access to special supercomputation centers and utilities as optimized mathematical libraries.

However, I send copies of my manuscripts to several specialists in diverse fields and my work is looked with great interest. When I sent to Dr. Gonzalo Ordoñez (a kind scientist at University of Texas) my own derivation of Pauli master equation (the usual derivation is incorrect because violates orthodox quantum mechanical principles), he said me that the derivation was “very interesting” and that my ideas would be published because my work provided a “very interesting vision of thermodynamics”. My lack of PhD was unimportant for him.

I cannot receive official funding for a subscription to the Journal of Physical Chemistry but astonishingly I could subscribe to the journal paying the corresponding rate! Why?

I am exhausted with this difficult situation. If finally, the launching of the Center is impossible due to “stupid” bureaucracy and some “archaic” scientists, then I will forget the program (both my money and persistence are not infinite) and send all my current work (research, preprints, viewpoints, reviews, etc.) to a domain of your site.

Juan.

:red_bandana:
The first canonical scientist.

#### Juan R.

• Chemist
• Full Member
• Posts: 148
• Mole Snacks: +24/-3
• Gender:
##### The future of canonical chemistry (I)
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2004, 07:10:25 AM »

Hi kindly friends,

The first letter “Canonical Chemistry Program” submitted to Nature was not published. Basically, it was posted here above. At this moment, the second letter “Non-official science, the PhD versus non-PhD dichotomy” (submitted 09/10/2004) has been not published. If it is not published, then I will reveal its full content.

I sent (09/02/2004) a preliminary poll about canonical chemistry and a restricted copy of the official launching of canonical chemistry to more than 30 organizations, news services, and others. I said, “Please send me every comment, criticism, plea, news, and others what you consider necessary for this program.” And “You also could post any queries and/or suggestions at www.chemicalforums.com >> Comments for Staff Writers and Staff >> Canonical chemistry”, between others statements. I received none reply, only a cold mute...

I sent a plea for reply (09/13/2004). Next, the content of the “unpleasant” reply:

Dear “chemical friend”,

Ten days ago, I sent you an informal communication about the new program of canonical chemistry that is being prepared.

As illustrated by the PDF archive attached, this program addresses a number of important aspects of modern chemistry and related sciences.

This program is not a usual scientific program; the objective of canonical chemistry is to recover chemistry as the most basic of sciences. It appears clear, at least for me, that a program as ambitious as this needs of the maximum of collaboration and/or criticism.

As a member of scientific, decision-making, political, press, or “general people” communities, I sent you a copy of the initial letter for your valuation.

I am ready to receive and study your comments about the canonical chemistry program. Note that by now, canonical chemistry has been developed outside of official science projects and funding. Fortunately, this program has attracted to a number of specialists in diverse fields even in its first steps. However, it would be good that this far-reaching program obtain a maximum of consensus of the corresponding communities.

If you are still interested in the details and scope of canonical chemistry, please send me your reply. If you needs more time and/or details please say it.

If you were not interested in it, I would also know it!

This informal poll will be closed this week and the replies studied.

With my best regards,

Juan R.
juanrgonzaleza@yahoo.es”
The first canonical scientist.

#### Juan R.

• Chemist
• Full Member
• Posts: 148
• Mole Snacks: +24/-3
• Gender:
##### The future of canonical chemistry (II)
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2004, 07:13:06 AM »

Is the above communication “bad writing”? Is its style “offensive”? Of course, I am not a very important man, but then do I “deserve” none reply? Would my “yahoo e-mail” be ignored because I am not the director of either an important industry or organization? Perhaps is this forum not “adequate” for some celebrated specialists with “dozens of degrees”?

Is it difficult to write, “I am not interested” or “we are interested in ‘this’ aspect of your program”?

My initial belief was that canonical chemistry would be discussed and critiqued by all the chemical community. I would hear the comments of engineers and professors, academics and industrial chemists, directors and students, etc. and correct/adjust the program. Moreover, my initial objective was to provide a full access to research articles also to relevant members of official chemical organizations (In fact, I wrote the letter for the official launching). I hoped that it would benefit to chemical community! Now, I see that I was some stupid. I have been thinking these days about all this.

If we can use our brains to develop a theoretically advanced formalism beyond usual physics and physical chemistry, why would we follow the policies of usual chemical organizations? Why would we follow the same policies that favored the closing of several chemical departments and the decreasing of chemical PhDs? If recent physicists’ work shows the fallacy of the BO approach, why would we use IUPAC’s conventions about definitions of bonds, chemical reactions, molecular species, etc? Note that in the past, some famous IUPAC’s conventions were defined as “arbitrary ones”.

Recently, ten chemists, including Nobel laureate Roald Hoffman, published a protest letter because the salary of the executive director of the ACS was excessive (nearly \$768,000 in 2002!!!). I imagine that those directors, secretaries, and others would spend his time in explaining why the salary is acceptable instead of replying the e-mails of an unimportant young chemist as I am.

Some years ago, some celebrated news services claimed for violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The claim was false; research articles were not rigorous. The question is, how could those services detect the extraordinary beautiful of canonical chemistry laws? Perhaps would they be more “prudent” now and wait for a “complete validation” of canonical chemistry?

Some mass media have claimed that all of chemistry can be studied from the Schrödinger equation. Of course, this is false, Murray Gell-Mann, one of the most renowned physicists said that the claim “was an exaggeration”. Canonical chemistry is more “radical” still and says us that the Schrödinger equation can be derived from canonical chemistry in a well-defined limit. How could I hope that a Spanish TV channel, devoted to popularizing science (Redes), was interested in canonical chemistry? Canonical chemistry says, basically, that several past contents of Redes (including speculations about String theory, black holes, multiple universes, etc.) were completely wrong.

Next, I include the list of e-mails with the aim of that perhaps any woman or man more important than me could ask them what is their opinion/attitude about the canonical chemistry program (?)

European Chemical Society BE ecs@chim.ucl.ac.be

The Royal Australian Chemical Institute member@raci.org.au

Brazilian Chemical Society www@sbq.org.br

The Chemical Society of Ethiopia  P. O. Box 32934, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (Did NOT send)

Chemical Research Society of India crsi@crsi.org.in

Sociedad Química del Peru sqperu@amauta.rcp.net.pe

Sociedade Portuguesa de Quimica  spq@spq.pt

South African Chemical Institute (SACI) saci@aurum.wits.ac.za

Asociación Nacional de Químicos de España (A.N.Qu.E.) anquejg@mail.ddnet.es

The Royal Society of Chemistry townsendr@rsc.org

American Chemical Society (ACS)  ycc@acs.org | tcaw@acs.org

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) media@aaas.org

The Novartis Foundation dchadwick@Novartisfound.org.uk

COST chemistry lpetrus@cost.esf.org.

Unesco g.archibald@unesco.org

ChemWeb darien.pugh@elsevier.com

Chemie.de (Noticias) info@chemie.de

Chemedia webmaster@chemedia.com

General Chemistry Online Web picks senese@antoine.frostburg.edu

FEIQUE info@feique.org

Reactive Reports david.bradley AT absw.org.uk

TheGuardian life@guardian.co.uk

Spacecom thoughts@hq.space.com

Redes  redes.b.tve@rtve.es

Asociación Española de Periodismo Científico cuerpo8@mail.ddnet.es

The Lancet  lancet.editorial@elsevier.co.uk

IUPAC secretariat@iupac.org

BBC news  newsonline@bbc.co.uk

EUROPA PRESS  noticias@europapress.es

Chemical Heritage Foundation  info@chemheritage.org

European Federation for Medicinal Chemistry (EFMC)  edmond.differding@belgacom.net | efmc@LDOrganisation.com

International Organization for Chemical Sciences in Development (IOCD)

Society of Chemical Industry  secretariat@soci.org

Computerhuesca fvalles@computerhuesca.es
The first canonical scientist.

#### Juan R.

• Chemist
• Full Member
• Posts: 148
• Mole Snacks: +24/-3
• Gender:
##### The future of canonical chemistry (III and last)
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2004, 07:18:32 AM »

I continue the funding of a new independent -i.e. far from the official programs and societies, etc.– center to develop adequately canonical chemistry. This new revolutionary chemistry will grow outside of official societies, science agencies, and journals. Intelligent people with open minds will can check my approach and improve it. E.g. archaic chemists working with the ART approach to adsorption kinetics could continue to work with the “old” approach, and their proved limitations and ambiguities. Modern physicists and chemists working with the most theoretically demanding SRT approach will can check the new, more sophisticated, CRT approach based in canonical chemistry.

Now, I am reading the recent Vol. 14 of advanced series in physical chemistry titled “Modern trends in chemical reaction dynamics” (World Scientific Publishing, 2004). In principle, the monograph recompiles modern trends to the current art of molecular dynamics by renowned world-leaders in the field. I am sorry to say this (monograph is good) but the theoretical discussion presented (e.g. Chapter 5) is just an elementary shadow to the powerful and sophisticated methods that are being developed in (and adapted to) canonical chemistry; e.g. after of three approximations valid for gas phase chemical systems one recover the mathematical level of the wave packet methods, so useful for gas phase chemical systems. But chemistry is also interested in liquids and solids… More about this in my article “Is this dynamics?” (in preparation, after of being discussed with a number of specialists in diverse topics).

I will provide full access to educative and viewpoints articles to students and general people. Note that, usually, students cannot access to educative papers in journals of chemical education. It is also my objective to collaborate in chemicalforums and solving possible doubts about canonical chemistry contents. These canonical articles are being prepared in three languages (English/Spanish/Gallego). Translation to others idioms will be permitted. Do you like to translate my works to French, German, or Chinese?

This is the last communication that I send about the difficulties that I find with this program. I am exhaust. I love chemistry, but not bureaucracy!

I would begin to solve doubts about the truly interesting: canonical chemistry.

Juan R.

:red_bandana:

The first canonical scientist.