Neither Physics nor Chemistry: A History of Quantum Chemistry, by Kostas Gavroglu and Ana Simoes. Transformation: Studies in the History of Science and Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 2012. xiv, 351 pp. $40.00 US (cloth). Kostas Gavroglu and Ana Simoes have presented a tour de force in their work on the history of quantum chemistry. Neither Physics nor Chemistry is not, however, for the casual reader. The authors assume that the reader will be familiar with valence bonds, Planck's constant, orbitals, and why X-ray crystallography can elucidate the internal structure or a molecule. If you are more intrigued than put off by the technical material, the book will reward you with a lucid investigation of the development of modern physical chemistry. Physical chemistry is to general chemistry as theoretical physics is to general physics. Physical chemistry is the study of the underlying principles of chemical behaviour and, like theoretical physics, has become over time more mathematical and esoteric. When the discovery of radioactivity in the nineteenth century opened the door to new areas of physics and led to the idea that energy carne in packets (the quanta), physical chemistry had to adapt to the new quantum universe. Underlying the story of quantum chemistry are two concerns. The first is a simple pragmatic question: How much physics do chemists need to know to do their jobs? The second issue is more transcendental: What is the relationship between forces and the structure of the material world? On the issue of the first question, the physicist Hans Hellmann, who fled Nazi Germany to Russia only to be killed in the purges of 1938, neatly summarized this problem by saying ... organic and inorganic chemistry are engaged in organic and inorganic substances, which substances are the topic of theoretical chemistry? Purely theoretical substances? Does quantum theory have any useful role in chemistry at all? (p. 33). For anyone who has assembled molecules out of sticks and plastic balls in a high school chemistry class, the answer seems to be a resounding no. Certainly in the first half of the twentieth century, the majority of chemists would also have answered that complex mathematics and the ghostly world of quantum physics added nothing to the chemists' toolbox. There was a cultural divide between the practical chemists and the physicist who looked at transcendental questions about the underlying principles of nature. Even amongst those who looked at the material world (such as Neils Bohr's work with Ernest Rutherford on the planetary model of the atom) tended to regard chemistry as at best a secondary topic; a by-product of physics. Physicists were looking at the majestic and eternal forces of nature, while chemistry was concerned with the crude world of dyes, chemical warfare and baby soap. There was a serious argument made by some physicists that the material world was just an illusion and the real world was created by fields of force. …
Read full abstract