Kaeroll

Oooh, I dunno about that. Firefighting is much more exciting than science, I expect.(Except at night, when we're action heroes). I guess nobody's quite sure what you're looking for or expecting - in my experience at least, dating a chemist is no different than dating an historian (as was my 'first love'). Other than the lack of emotional blackmail and adultery, but I suspect that's more to do with the girl than the degree, amirite? As I said a moment ago,my girlfriend (no - we're not all single!) is a chemist and it doesn't really have much effect on our relationship, beyond her nicking my course notes from last year (she's a year below me on my course). We don't sit round discussing Claisen condensations and London forces. (A damn shame. ) Stop worrying and enjoy each day as it comes!

Russell T Davies can't write for toffee. I'm usually quite accepting. I can't stand Dr Who style 'sci'-fi - "Oh, the temporal continuum has a tear in it! If we don't reverse the polarity of the quantum transducer we'll be sucked into an alternate reality where everyone has big chins!" etc. Big words does not good sci fi make.

What level of study is 'orgo II'? I've be interested in corresponding with you when I've got the time, though given that I'm in the UK I may not be your best bet. Kaeroll

There are motivations other than money, y'know.

True! Also, don't pretend you're interested if you're not. Most of the scientists I've met are enthusiastic to say the least about their area, and you're likely to end up knowing more than you ever wanted to about it.

The above are all excellent posts and I agree with most of the points raised therein. Question for discussion: what about restricted references? By this I mean journal articles for which one needs a subscription, or books? Suppose I get into a flame war over the specifics of the Robinson annealation (yeah, I don't see it happening either, but run with it). I can think of maybe one site other than Wikipedia which discusses this, so my options are run to a journal article by Dr. Robinson, or my fat textbook by Prof. Clayden (et al). I think it's reasonable to suggest most posters here don't have subscriptions to many or most journals. On the subject - Wikipedia. Discuss.

We use it to quantify data in order to make precise predictions, which are then investigated to test the hypothesis. In my area at least, quantification and prediction improve syntheses. Kaeroll

Brilliant! Must try...

There was a thread that ran to several thousand posts over a few years at another forum I frequent. At one point - wait for it - non-nuclear, nuclear bombs were postulated. Yeah.

Boooooo!

In response to the OP... I've always felt this is something of a fallacy. The sensation of touch is a product of the electron repulsion described- since when does 'touching' an object require nuclear fusion?

What's there to say? We chemists are a diverse breed. Your lucky man may well be fantastic - or he could be a total looney (like most of us. ) To answer your original questions... my professional advice as a professional* scientist is to wait and see, as you would with any other relationship. That and don't mention hydrogen bonding. My 'significant other' of nearly a year now is a fellow chemist and it's working out... explosively. O_O

I recently read this passage in a (short) book on the history of chemistry. It struck me as very true to the spirit of science.

That's actually an interesting point. However, I feel you must recognise the distinction between 'shared subjectivity' that is truly a matter of opinion and cultural and social trends, and 'shared subjectivity' that can be demonstrated or proven using concrete logic (mathematics) or experiment. Objectivity goes beyond human thought insofar as it's reproducible - can't argue with empirical fact, really. (The interpretation, of course, is subjective). Off-topic: coberst, you used to post at PhysOrg, no? Kaeroll

I highly doubt it's oxide - aluminium is usually coated in a layer of oxide under standard conditions, due to its reactivity. Aluminium isn't orange so I assume its oxide isn't either.

This is probably the most bizarre thread I've ever encountered here. (Admittedly, I've not been here long. But I've seen wife-beatings, nipple-twists, and perhaps the most tenacious troll on the internet)

Or peanut butter and banana. Elvis approved. Who's gonna disagree with the King?

From the little information you've given me I'm guessing this a problem of molecular symmetry? Kaeroll

I expect they would have an oil-like consistency, but I've never handled one so I couldn't say.

Seems decent... I'd also recommend a nice thick layer of tinfoil around it.

Mentos and Coke? (Actually, tested this myself. No luck.) Kaeroll

As you said yourself - you had a hypothesis, and you demonstrated it to be incorrect. Welcome to Science™. Kaeroll

Nope, but I've read the book. It's decent. Gave me a nice handle on qualitative aspects of QM before I studied it in detail. He loves his Simpsons analogies... Kaeroll

Welllll.... it's useful with lots of qualifiers. "X is reactive towards Y under conditions Z", as it were. But I'm just being a pedant.

I'm no physicist but x-rays can interact with electrons via diffraction. Handy for resolving crystal structures.