hypervalent_iodine

As others have said, math is very much the foundation of a lot of areas of science. You haven't 'wasted' your time in the sense that if you were wanting to pursue a different scientific discipline, you already have a lot of very useful skills at your disposal. However, re-reading your post I think that you are more disappointed that you haven't taken up any research opportunities and have therefore wasted valuable chances - that you've somehow wasted your time by virtue of the fact that you haven't gone out of your way to actively gain experience and apply your knowledge to research type situations. Your problem, if I am reading this correctly, is that you don't feel like you've not done anything. I could be mistaken in that. In any case, I think it's important to note that it's never too late to become motivated. I don't know what your university is like, but if you are desperate for a chance to do something you consider worthwhile, maybe speak to a professor engaged in research if you can volunteer to do some work on a project for a little while? Otherwise, there's always post-graduate course work. The main thing to note is, as I said before, it's never too late. You just have to have the right attitude and motivation to remedy your issue. You'd be surprised how far a little motivation gets you.

I saw these graphs once in another thread entitled: "Are we experiencing the beginning of a new ice age?". It was on a conspiracy theory website, so I held very little credence to their validity or the interpretations lent to them by the author of said thread, particularly since there was no reference to where they had come from. In any case, this is a copy of another post I made some time ago, which seems pertinent to some of the replies related to historical contexts. You'll have to excuse the lack of references, I honestly cannot remember where all the information came from. And this: If you want to find out more about this graph and its implications, the updated 2005 paper by Dyurgerov and Meier can be downloaded for free here .

Read above for why this thread is statistically invalid.

...that's what I said, yes.

Sure, but the problem here isn't in the potential answers, it's that your question is flawed and incorrect. You don't have to mention the word compound, it's implicit. The point is that you mentioned organic chemistry and, well, this isn't organic chemistry. No need to limit your response, this thread holds no statistical value anyway.

Well, I know you said lay/novice chemists only, but I feel the need to point out a rather fundamental flaw in your study. Actually, two flaws. 1. Organic chemistry deals with carbon-based compounds. The reaction you have up there has no carbon containing compounds in it and is therefore not considered to be organic chemistry. Maybe you should rephrase your question or come up with a different one. 2. This is not a blind study. You've not only informed potential participants explicitly on what this is about, you've even gone so far as to tell them that they are the control group. One other thing: even if you did manage to make this a blind study, your results still hold absolutely no statistical validity. Why? Because you have not a single way of determining if the people participating in this questionnaire have any formal qualifications or any other factors that may promote bias in their results. In other words, you have no basis by which to justify any causal relationships.

Even still, just telling you the answer defeats the point. Have you had another go at 38/39? Your other answers look okay to me.

Unfortunately, we're not really here to proof read people's assignments, but we can help you with the questions you are struggling with. With respect tot the epoxide question, you have to think about what sort of reactions epoxides love to undergo and what role the oxygen on the MeOH will play. The only hint I will give you at this point is that the first step of your reaction is a lone pair of electrons on the epoxide oxygen will pick up your H+.

You know, I never actually considered enzymatic reactions. It's an interesting addition, even if I do consider it cheating . The use of enzyme-catalysed reactions is generally precluded due to cost. Some are cheap, as you say, but most are extremely pricey, which makes them useless for large-scale preps. I agree with you also on the point of the fuzzy line not mattering. As I said, I think that Click chemistry is more of a philosophy than anything. Knowing what a 'good' reaction is, which is really what Click chemistry tries to define, is perhaps not necessary (synthetic chemists should be aiming for it regardless), but at the same time it can serve as a handy reminder of where to make improvements and what to aim for. Another thing that came to mind a while ago was that it also appeals to the notion of convenience.

If I couldn't imagine the existence of the ocean, does the ocean exist? Not that I agree that God exists. I am simply making the point that not being able to conceive the existence of something does not necessirily mean it doesn't exist. Similarly, imagining something to be real does not mean it does exist. I think that this idea is, in a way, how people began to believe in a God/s in the first place.

There has been a depressing lack of good organic chemistry threads of late, so I thought I might start spark some conversation. A topic I've always found rather amusing is that of Click chemistry. It seems to evoke so many conflicting emotions amongst the chemists that I know - some spit at it in disgust, some (I'm sure) have shrines dedicated to Barry Sharpless in their offices, while others question whether or not it exists at all. For those of you aren't aware of what it takes to be a Clickalicious reaction, or who have never heard the term in their life, some background: Click chemistry is quoted in wikipedia as a 'chemical philosophy' - a term I rather agree with. It was first coined by Barry Sharpless of the Scripps institute and was used by Sharpless and his colleagues to describe a class of reactions that adhere to the following criteria: - Have a wide scope (i.e. apply to a large variety of substrates) - Be chemo and regioselective - Be modular/have high atom economy (i.e. all of the atoms in the reagent should be incorporated into the product) - Give high yields - Generate only benign by-products - Be performed in easy to handle solvents (ionic liquids are a big NO) - Exhibit a large thermodynamic driving force towards the production of a single product) - Be stable - Starting materials should be easy to handle and easy to obtain The poster child of this class of reaction is that of the super-clicky Huisgen cycloaddition: (image from Huisgen Reaction (wikipedia)) Polymer chemists adore this reaction. In fact, if you ask most polymer chemists, the Huisgen reaction is all there is to Click chemistry. Indeed, many fledgling polymer chemists I know of wouldn't be able to tell you the first thing about what it really means to 'do the Click' and are thus understandably confused by all the commotion 90% of organic chemists make about it. There is some truth to their belief that Click = Huisgen, however. It is in fact one of maybe two reactions that truly apply to the Sharpless definition - the other one being a thiol-ene type reaction (source). There have been others cited as being Click-tastic, but I personally find them questionable. One such example I found while reading a blog, Carbon Based Curiosities: The author of the blog questions the ease of synthesising the benzyne intermediate, which appears to violate the stipulation of Click reactions using only benign and easily accessible starting materials - and I would personally agree with their position. They also raise the point that making alkynes and azides isn't a very Clicky process either, which begs the question of whether the Huisgen is truly a Click reaction? I think the wikipedia description of Click chemistry as a philosophy rather than a class of reactions is quite apt. As noted in the Carbon Based Curiosities blog: I agree with this statement. However, I think it is silly to assume that organic chemists and the like wouldn't, didn't and don't aim to achieve clean, high-yielding reactions irrespective of the existence of Click chemistry. This is why many organic chemists find the idea so offensive - why would anyone assume that they need to be told that this is what they should be aiming for in developing a reaction? My opinion of the matter is that it is certainly a useful idea, but it's also an obvious one that doesn't really need its own name and one that most certainly existed before Sharpless decided to give it one. So what does everyone else think?

Fair point. To answer your questions: I would consider mostly all areas of science to be challenging and thought provoking in their own right. It's really a matter of what you find the most interesting. Since you seem to be more inclined towards mathematical based sciences, I think physics based subjects may be suitable for you. There are area of chemistry that utilise some fairly complex maths and quantum physical descriptions. Magnetochemistry is one of them, physical chemistry another. As I said, it's really a matter of what you find the most interesting. In my experience, the best way to test which one appeals to you the most is simply to enrol in courses and see where it takes you. At the start of my undergraduate I had the idea that I wanted to specialise in biochemistry. However, the more I got into it, the more I started to deviate towards the chemistry side of things. By the end of second year, I had dropped biology completely and swore never to enrol in another course code starting with 'B' (though that's not to say I didn't/don't appreciate the usefulness of the biology courses I had already taken). You don't 'need to bother learning too much about each and every field by studying directly'. I would recommend narrowing it down to a few subject areas and enrolling in the appropriate subjects. Provided your institution doesn't enforce too many pre-requisites for higher level subjects, you should find it quite easy to get a taste for a few different areas and then specialise in subsequent semesters. Another thing to note is that it may be worth while for you to undertake a dual degree or dual major. I have a number of friends here in Australia who have done or are near completing a dual BA (pure maths major) and BSc degree. In QLD this only requires an additional year of study, but this would of course vary depending on where you go.

I'm an organic chemist who works primarily on total synthesis of complex targets as well as synthetic methodology, so this is certainly far from my area of expertise and I honestly couldn't give you an informed opinion on the actual basis of the study. I merely made a point concerning the general validity of scientific experimentation and their respective conclusions, which I am much more familiar with. I think it's important to not let the stigma attached to a name such as Stanford to allow you to form too much bias in the way you accept the conclusions of an article. Of course, the name might lend more 'credence' to their remarks, but it doesn't mean that their results should not be subjected to the same questioning as the same results from another university. That was all I was really trying to say. That's perfectly fair for you to want to engage with people who are experienced in this area and I am not saying that it is in any way a bad thing to desire. My previous comment was more directed based on the assumption that you had intended to be condescending - which is how it came across (to my mind). In any case, you may very well find someone here who does know more about it eventually - and good luck to you on that front.

No need to be condescending, Swansot makes a perfectly valid point. It doesn't matter where these people are from, it matters that their results are independently reproducible and hence, verifiable. Otherwise they simply cannot be accepted. As was said, a lot of anomalous results are simply the result of one error or another and, just as anything else, need to be verified. Taking the words of someone as gospel on the basis of who they are and/or where they are based is rather a daft way to develop an understanding of things and is by no means scientific.

Semantics. That's more or less what I meant.

You'll have to excuse my explanation as I am certainly no biologist. As a matter of illustration, I think it is a mistake to assume that the ability to camouflage is a trait that appears within an individual species over the course of its lifetime. It is inherent. The appearance of camouflage within a population is a result of positive selection - i.e. organisms who do not posses the trait have an intrinsically low ability to survive and thus do not pass on their genetic information to subsequent generations, whereas those that do posses it will.

I think someone woke up on the wrong side of the Renaissance this morning.

In addition to ajb's last comment, the best way to get funding as an organic chemist us to make it medicinally applicable. I cannot comment on other areas of science, however. I also find you comment about philosophy quite ignorant - the best scientists of our time were (and continue to be) philosophers. Furthermore, if you actually think chemistry, biology and geology are easy specialisations to master and don't venture outside of the confines of undergraduate level theory, then you haven't researched them thoroughly enough.

I considered cheating and going over to above top secret to find out what they were thinking. But I didn't. You can almost guarantee that there will be a few saying they are lying about the whole thing. They never found let alone killed Osama and are only saying so to make the 'sheepies' think the government (read: NWO/illuminati/reptilians) is actually doing something. Probably there will be a few saying it's a distraction and that something non-descript but certainly 'BIG' is about to happen. Following that, a few survivalist threads will pop up. More threads about how it all ties back to the Illuminati and a few about reptilians. Mostly all doom and gloom. Then you'll get the obligatory 9/11 conspiracies flaring back up until someone remembers Japan or Trump claims that Obama's parents weren't from Kenya at all, but are in fact the former leaders of a rebel army in the Republic of Congo and spent their time kidnapping children from their homes and turning them into soldiers. He will then demand birth certificates from both as well as a letter from Kenya confirming their birth. And this is why I should stop reading conspiracy sites.

It's not necessarily insoluble, it just means that it's in its solid form. As CaptainPanic said, and ionic (note, not iconic) solid is a solid that consists of ionic (charged) species. Table salt, NaCl, is one such solid since it consists of Na+ and Cl- ions.

It is of course possible to take up post graduate studies in a field for which you do not have what would be considered the pre-requisite degree. I am not familiar with the curriculum for a standard pharmacy degree, though I would imagine you would have a fair idea of neurological mechanisms and how they manifest to clinical disorders. So I suppose in that sense, it shouldn't be too hard of a transition. You would be best off speaking to your university and asking them whether or not it is possible though, since they will be making the final decision. .

It's to do with the position of functional groups on the deoxyribose. The terminal hydroxy is at the 3' position, which means that it is on the 3' position on the ring. The starting phosphate is similarly on the 5' position on the ring. It's just the numbering convention.

Oh, you don't know? It's a conspiracy.