Posted by Juan on October 15, 19103 at 07:15:30:
(15 October 2003)
Dear reader,
I submitted a preprint, titled “The fascinating kernel of Chemistry”, to CPS at 30 September 2003. I re-submit it at 10 October 2003. However, the manuscript newer was posted at web.
I also sent some e-mails to preprint@chemweb.com explaining the problem with the reject and soliciting some formal request. I received none response.
Then, I posted two messages about all this in CPS: physchem/0309002. I have obtained none official response, but fortunately I obtained several personal mails of people interested in a new conception of chemistry.
In principle, CPS is an open project for preprinting and discussion of works of interest to chemists. Then why has my work been systematically rejected for preprint? Note: my previous work in thermodynamics was preprinted at the direction cited above.
Why is not my work posted at web? Must I think that there is some “conflict” between my own research in chemistry and the policies (present or future) by ChemWeb, Inc? I do not know that.
Why some works with, IN PRINCIPLE, none direct link with chemistry (for instance CPS: physchem/0103032) are posted at CPS (for example Chris Knight opines that Johnson‘s work is not a RESEARCH article) whereas my own work is systematically rejected. I newer knew the answer to this strange attitude. Perhaps all my work is too novel for CPS!
In my opinion, “The fascinating kernel of Chemistry” is an interesting work that opens a philosophical and theoretical debate about the future of our discipline. The paper is somewhat similar to Laszlo’s work “A SKETCH OF A PROGRAM” published in Foundations of chemistry [Foundations of Chemistry 3: 269–271, 2001].
**********************
For two years some “experts” have broadly rejected my research work, whereas it was well received by other scientists and philosophers. I have an impressive collection of strange e-mails and replies. Basically, the “typical” reply that I receive of “experts” is similar to (my words) “I cannot understand your work, then your work MUST be wrong”.
My first work in thermodynamics has received a lot of attention. For example, a first version was fiercely commented by some expertise (for example a recognized chemist said me: “As Planck noted, either second law must be valid in all circumstances or in no circumstance... if you consistently take the deviation from detailed balance due to fluctuations and relate it to fluctuations in other quantities you will find that the zeroth law is indeed valid... Perhaps the referees of the journal to which you submitted this article will point out the error in your discussion.” I.e. As Planck noted your work must be incorrect... your work is incorrect... I not know where it is incorrect.), but the preliminary version post at CPS was well received. For example, a recognized leader in the field of chemical physics said “I like your approach, both the extension of Keizer's work and the use of effective parameters. It is interesting that Keizer abstracted his ideas from macroscopic thermodynamics 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. I am glad to see that you do not find violations even at the mesoscopic level.”
Actually, I have extended Keizer’s original ideas to the microscopic level. For example, I can demonstrate that an extension of the original formalism works for one and two particle-states in quantum field theory! In fact, a well-known theorem of field theory for elementary particles, compatible with S-matrix theory of fundamental scattering, can be straightforwardly derived from the modified Keizer’s formalism.
Other works include an intense and detailed criticism of standard approaches in thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, quantum field theory, etc; extension of current theories and approaches, and others. Moreover, I am working in a profound reformulation of quantum mechanics, one fully compatible with chemical processes and structural theory. Usual “trivial” quantum mechanics is a completely illogical subject with poor mathematics, and then it cannot be the basis for theoretical chemistry. Some quantum chemists have said that traditional chemistry is a metaphor; well, organic chemistry is not a metaphor, but the foundation of usual quantum chemistry is one.
One of my works is a general criticism on the foundation of dynamics. Some recognized expertise in advanced fields of chemical-physics and physics have discussed the manuscript with me in a scientific basis (there are controversy in some specific details as, for instance, the role of Poincaré resonances in irreversibility). However, I sent a copy of the manuscript to a “typical” physical chemist (a previous professor mine) and his reply was based in very strong statements, possibly based in his knowledge of “typical” physical chemistry. For example, he was astonished of my claim of that the Pauli equation is incompatible with quantum mechanics, or that usual molecular dynamics simulations are not based in Hamiltonian dynamics. Moreover, he did some other strange criticisms, as that of that my work “was a review with a small number of references”. (I believe that he fails to differentiate between “comprehensive reviews” and “individual investigator reviews” [Chem. Rev. 2000, 100, 11-12]).
Now, I have more than 10 pure research works (thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, philosophy, statistical mechanics, non-equilibrium quantum field theory, adsorption kinetic, etc.) and 3 overviews in progress (“The fascinating future of Chemistry”, “The fascinating kernel of Chemistry”, and “The fascinating past of Chemistry”), but I consider that they cannot be well received for publication in “typical” journals of chemistry. Now SRT approach is discussed in Langmuir, but initially it was published in J. chem. phys. In principle, my works would be pre-printed in CPS, for a broad discussion and seeing by chemical community. However, after of my recent experience with the server, I believe that CPS is not the correct site for a revolution in chemistry. The submitting of my research work to CPS is stopped.
I consider that this new conception of chemistry is a canonical definition, i.e. I name “canonical chemistry”. I consider that canonical chemistry (or other finest formulation by other people) will be the future foundation of chemistry, with current “typical” physical chemistry as an “archaic” limited subject.
Of course, there are impressive investigations, fascinating physical chemists (Prigogine, Keizer, etc.) and excellent textbooks, but you must ask the following: is “typical” physical chemistry an “archaic” topic. For instance, I am astonished of that in “typical” textbooks (see, for example, the basic I. N. Levine’s textbook in physical chemistry or the traditional “Chemical Thermodynamics, Basic Theory and Methods” by Klotz and Rosenberg) the second law is usually shown in an incorrect form. However in some engineering works [Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2002, 41, 2931-2940] the second law is discussed much more rigorously; for instance dS=dq/T is true ONLY for closed systems. Is that “rigor” of “typical” physical chemistry acceptable for us?
Of course, my research is complex, i.e. it is not simple as classical thermodynamics or quantum theory (In the last communication with the Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine, I received the following response: “The questions that you ask are very difficult.” Unfortunately, my subsequent e-mail received none response, Prigogine passed away), and the investigation need of further improvement, but we, the chemists, can do it.
I am a young chemist with a clear objective; to achieve a new conception of chemistry much more advanced, and general than present-day one.
Regards, Juan.