Will Chemistry become Alchemy in the future?

[Elite Engineer]

Now I'm not actually equating chemistry to alchemy, but I am equating their existence/ legacy through history.

 

Alchemy, understood in today's time is an old pseudo-science philosophy of transmuting one element into another, etc...not going into detail, you get the idea. With the emergence of inventions and discoveries such as the God particle, quantum mechanics, 3D printing, holograms, powerful supercomputers, etc; will chemistry in 50-100 years be equivalent to the myth and legends of alchemy today? Will people who synthesize acetone in their garage be seen as practicing an out-dated, useless, mythical ritual that has no equivalence or purpose to the science of the future?

 

~EE

[ralfy]

It might become part of localization, permaculture, etc., as societies face multiple predicaments ranging from a resource crunch to environmental damage.

[John Cuthber]

Hang on, where did you get the idea that " people who synthesize acetone in their garage " are any significant part of chemistry?

By analogy, will someone who makes their own cloud chamber at home turn physics into alchemy?

Does an amateur plant breeder turn biology into "out-dated, useless, mythical ritual that has no equivalence or purpose to the science of the future"?

 

There just isn't any link between where you start in that post, and where you end up.

 

Alchemists were trying to do one of a few impossible things- the philosopers stone, transmutataiion of elements or whatever.

Chemitsts are not trying to do impossible things (even if they are making acetone in the garage).

[Elite Engineer]

Hang on, where did you get the idea that " people who synthesize acetone in their garage " are any significant part of chemistry?

By analogy, will someone who makes their own cloud chamber at home turn physics into alchemy?

Does an amateur plant breeder turn biology into "out-dated, useless, mythical ritual that has no equivalence or purpose to the science of the future"?

 

There just isn't any link between where you start in that post, and where you end up.

 

Alchemists were trying to do one of a few impossible things- the philosopers stone, transmutataiion of elements or whatever.

Chemitsts are not trying to do impossible things (even if they are making acetone in the garage).

I mentioned that I wasn't comparing them as equivalent in practice, but try to illustrate how alchemy is viewed as a useless, waste of time practice, and that in the future chemistry may be useless and a waste of time relative to the inventions of that time. Similar to reading at the library as opposed to using the internet. In essence, I'm asking will chemistry (i.e. lab synthesis of organic compounds) have any place during the Jetsons.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Alchemical pursuits may now be understood to be conceptually incorrect, but I doubt anyone worth their salt would call it useless. Practicing or believing in alchemy now would be ridiculous, sure, but was influential towards progress at the time.

 

Current wet-lab techniques will certainly become antiquated, but the need for analytical techniques and chemical synthesis will not diminish in the same way that the need for information (whether by book or by internet) does not. I find it hard to believe that in, say, 100 years how we practice chemistry now would ever be viewed as useless. You can't get to point B without first starting at point A.

[Elite Engineer]

Alchemical pursuits may now be understood to be conceptually incorrect, but I doubt anyone worth their salt would call it useless. Practicing or believing in alchemy now would be ridiculous, sure, but was influential towards progress at the time.

 

Current wet-lab techniques will certainly become antiquated, but the need for analytical techniques and chemical synthesis will not diminish in the same way that the need for information (whether by book or by internet) does not. I find it hard to believe that in, say, 100 years how we practice chemistry now would ever be viewed as useless. You can't get to point B without first starting at point A.

Thank you! suppose you're right, and you even sort of reworded my question to make more sense.

[CharonY]

Moreover, the key are not the techniques that differentiate alchemy from modern sciences, but the understanding of the underlying mechanisms or processes. Newer technologies are likely to change the actual protocols and may make certain reactions obsolete. However, the knowledge of nature of the molecules is likely not to be fundamentally revised.

[Elite Engineer]

Moreover, the key are not the techniques that differentiate alchemy from modern sciences, but the understanding of the underlying mechanisms or processes. Newer technologies are likely to change the actual protocols and may make certain reactions obsolete. However, the knowledge of nature of the molecules is likely not to be fundamentally revised.

I'm very happy to hear this..this is the answer I was looking for...

[John Cuthber]

Fundamentally, you don't seem to understand what chemistry is. You say ", I'm asking will chemistry (i.e. lab synthesis of organic compounds) have any place during the Jetsons.".

Most chemistry isn't done in labs, it's done in industry.

Do you understand that everything is made from chemicals?

The physicists may like to claim that everything is physics, but, if you actually want to make something, you need chemistry (unless you plan to carve it from wood with a flint knife).

 

​The computer screen you are looking at is a massively complex array of synthetic materials. The chips driving it are built by chemically etching silicon (or GaAs or whatever) made, in turn, by chemistry.

 

The idea that chemistry will become obsolete is only credible to someone who doesn't understand what chemistry does.

[sialic acid]

This thread makes no sense. How is knowing the existence of a god particle or quantum mechanics going to help you do a 10 step synthesis to create a new drug? You can have all the QM you want, it will barely help you do synthetic organic chemistry. You can't even solve the time dependent schrodinger equation for a 3 bodied problem. How am I supposed to use QM to help me perform multistep procedures?

 

 

I love to always read the claim that everything reduces to physics. We used to run the most advanced quantum computing software available at the time to perform virtually screening of compounds against our desired targets. What was hilarious was that when we actually synthesized the compounds and tested them in real life against the target, often times the compounds that were "supposed to be" the best compound against the target were often the worst, and what were supposed to be the worst compounds against the target often ended up being the most potent. It just shows you how unpreditable nature can be, even if you have a working model of quantum theory. If you actually read the fine details of many models of physical systems, they often include ridiculous assumptions that often fail apart in the real world. Many complex examples biological phenomena described by physics often assume things like steady state systems to make the calculations and modeling easier. In the real world however, SS almost never exists in many important scenarios.

Edited December 9, 2013 by sialic acid

[hypervalent_iodine]

This thread makes no sense. How is knowing the existence of a god particle or quantum mechanics going to help you do a 10 step synthesis to create a new drug? You can have all the QM you want, it will barely help you do synthetic organic chemistry. You can't even solve the time dependent schrodinger equation for a 3 bodied problem. How am I supposed to use QM to help me perform multistep procedures?

 

 

I love to always read the claim that everything reduces to physics. We used to run the most advanced quantum computing software available at the time to perform virtually screening of compounds against our desired targets. What was hilarious was that when we actually synthesized the compounds and tested them in real life against the target, often times the compounds that were "supposed to be" the best compound against the target were often the worse, and what were supposed to be the worst compounds against the target often ended up being the most potent. It just shows you how unpreditable nature can be, even if you have a working model of quantum theory. If you actually read the fine details of many models of physical systems, they often include ridiculous assumptions that often fail apart in the real world. Many complex examples biological phenomena described by physics often assume things like steady state systems to make the calculations and modeling easier. In the real world however, SS almost never exists in many important scenarios.

I think you missed the point in the OP. I think Elite Engineer just picked some bad examples when trying to illustrate our recent technological and theoretical developments.

 

Edit: The second paragraph doesn't really follow from your first point. All it really signifies is that we don't have a complete picture of the parameters that dictate how compounds dock, etc.

[daphne2013]

I think NO.

 

Even if really can, and the gold is false.

Or if just like real gold, the gold is not worth much.