Area 51 » Science

111

followers

Follow It!

Announcements

I have seen many great physics questions in here, regarding material properties, atomic physics, physical chemistry and solid state physics. Case you don't as them on physics stack exchange. – Bernardo Kyotoku Dec 4 '10 at 9:07

Members of ACS or other professional organizations need to get the news about this SE! SE is very diverse, but these are great sources of specialists. – xenomancer Mar 17 '11 at 15:56

@Bernardo: There's a great deal of overlap between chemistry and other scientific disciplines, including physics, biology, and mathematics. – Bob Murphy Apr 7 '11 at 23:44

show 1 more announcement

This proposal is now in the Commitment phase — example questions are locked!

80 Example Questions (10 closed)

active oldest votes

up vote 0 down vote

added by Bob Murphy Dec 3 '10 at 6:16

closed as off topic by Yasir Arsanukaev, Fabian, NewName, tryaria, biLOLogy Mar 29 '11 at 19:49

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

Deliberately off-topic: really a botany question, and too vague even for that. Not to mention the bad grammar. :-) – Bob Murphy Dec 3 '10 at 6:18

up vote 0 down vote

added by WikiSpeedia hang-around Dec 20 '10 at 16:38

	(Spectrum: relative abundance of fragments as a function of mass-to-charge ratio.) – WikiSpeedia hang-around Dec 20 '10 at 16:39
	Are questions about colliding molecules in the gas phase and the consequence thereof on-topic or off-topic? – WikiSpeedia hang-around Dec 20 '10 at 16:42
	My doctoral research in physical organic chemistry involved colliding molecules in the gas phase and the consequences thereof, so I'd hope it's on-topic. :-) – Bob Murphy Jan 15 '11 at 22:54

up vote 0 down vote

added by Ravisankar S Jan 9 '11 at 13:14

up vote 0 down vote

added by PleaseStand Jan 11 '11 at 22:58

up vote 0 down vote

added by QH7 Feb 12 '11 at 13:08

up vote 0 down vote

added by AcidFlask Feb 21 '11 at 5:40

up vote 0 down vote

added by Nuha Mar 11 '11 at 19:50

up vote 0 down vote

added by Nuha, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Mar 12 '11 at 21:40

up vote 0 down vote

added by Nuha, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Mar 12 '11 at 21:40

up vote 0 down vote

added by xenomancer Mar 15 '11 at 17:29

Very good, on-topic question. They developed over time as measurements and theoretical understanding improved. It's kind of like "why do we need both Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics". – Bob Murphy Mar 30 '11 at 4:10

up vote 0 down vote

added by M'vy, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Apr 17 '11 at 18:19

up vote 0 down vote

added by Alex B Apr 20 '11 at 2:14

up vote -1 down vote

added by googletorp Jun 9 '10 at 9:20

closed as off topic by KennyTM, Vortico, Tobias Kienzler, Beska, dthorpe Aug 13 '10 at 0:21

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

	Off-topic, photons are not explained with chemistry, the use or observation of photons in a chemical reaction would be on-topic. – googletorp Jun 9 '10 at 9:21
	This would be more physics-related than chemistry. area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics – Vortico Jun 10 '10 at 19:45
	@Vortica Since it's a very fundamental question I'd prefer it on Popular Natural Science area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/… – Tobias Kienzler Jun 11 '10 at 7:32
	Definitely off-topic. However, the way photons promote electrons into higher-energy orbitals, resulting in photochemical reactions that wouldn't occur thermally, is quite interesting. – Bob Murphy Dec 1 '10 at 4:30
	Actually, the chemist's definition of what a photon is is very relevant to chemistry - particularly to physical and analytical chemistry. I don't think this is a good example of an off-topic question. – tryaria Mar 1 '11 at 23:08

up vote -1 down vote

added by KennyTM, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Dec 20 '10 at 16:25

closed as off topic by googletorp, Tobias Kienzler, Vortico, ssakl, dthorpe Aug 13 '10 at 0:20

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

Radioactivity by itself is not a chemistry question. – googletorp Jun 9 '10 at 22:14

it's rather (nuclear) physics. And to date not entirely answerable – Tobias Kienzler Jun 10 '10 at 7:38

I would argue that this can still be considered chemistry, since many people specifically design molecules with certain isotopes for various purposes in chemistry. Definitely a great "off-topic" example though – David Hollman Aug 31 '10 at 14:24

Despite the current votes (1 on:19 off) and my agreement with the general trend, I feel compelled to point out that Marie Curie won both the Physics and Chemistry Nobels for her work on radioactivity. – AcidFlask Feb 21 '11 at 5:36

This is an important chemistry question when you get into fields outside of pure chemistry - for example geochemistry. One of the major areas of study in geochemistry is based on radioactive decay, so understanding which elements are radioactive, and why, can be considered chemistry. I don't think we should waste one of the five example questions to point out that radiation might be better investigated in physics. – tryaria Mar 1 '11 at 23:10

show 1 more comment

up vote -1 down vote

added by Ned Nov 17 '10 at 4:16

	physics question – Bernardo Kyotoku Dec 4 '10 at 8:28
	To estimate color, you need a lot of chemical data beyond just elemental spectroscopy. For instance, with organic compounds, you need to know the compound's 3-D molecular structure, and pay particular attention to conjugated pi bonds. – Bob Murphy Dec 13 '10 at 6:48
	Question needs some editing. @Bernardo Kyotoku this is actually an important physical and analytical chemistry question. For that matter, it has applications into organic and inorganic chemistry. Just because it deals with light doesn't make it pure physics. – tryaria Mar 1 '11 at 23:23

up vote -1 down vote

added by CrazyJugglerDrummer Dec 4 '10 at 0:56

closed as off topic by Cody Gray, QH7, Richard Terrett, ogerard, Fabian Apr 16 '11 at 7:23

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

Everything. :-) – Bob Murphy Dec 13 '10 at 7:05

Seems a bit too obviously off topic. – tryaria Mar 1 '11 at 23:18

up vote -2 down vote

added by JFW Nov 11 '10 at 14:20

closed as off topic by UTChemistry, Bob Murphy, irrelephant, iansinke, Borror0 Jan 16 '11 at 7:19

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

This is really two different questions. "What are molecular formulas" can be explained in a few minutes. "How does one get them" is very complex and people spend careers on that. – Bob Murphy Nov 30 '10 at 7:07

@Bob Murphy Just because the answer may be long winded doesn't mean that the question is bad. I agree that this should be two questions, but the second does have a standard answer. – tryaria Mar 1 '11 at 23:14

up vote -4 down vote

added by JMin, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Dec 20 '10 at 16:27

	This would probably be a good topic for the proposed Computational Chemistry site – David Hollman Aug 31 '10 at 14:26
	Thanks, David. I joined the proposal : ). It'd be great to have some place to post all the questions I can't get answers for in class. – JMin Sep 1 '10 at 21:43