Models of necessity

The way chemists represent chemical structures as two-dimensional sketches made up of atoms and bonds, simplifying the complex three-dimensional molecules comprising nuclei and electrons of the quantum mechanical description, is the everyday language of chemistry. This language uses models, particul...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Timothy Clark, Martin G. Hicks
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Beilstein-Institut 2020-07-01
Series:Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3762/bjoc.16.137
id doaj-5bf14e4ad74d44e5ad09be7fb418fa42
record_format Article
spelling doaj-5bf14e4ad74d44e5ad09be7fb418fa422021-04-02T09:27:55ZengBeilstein-InstitutBeilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry1860-53972020-07-011611649166110.3762/bjoc.16.1371860-5397-16-137Models of necessityTimothy Clark0Martin G. Hicks1Computer-Chemistry-Center, Department of Chemistry and Pharmacy, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nägelsbachstr. 25, 91052 Erlangen, GermanyBeilstein-Institut, Trakehner Str. 7–9, 60487 Frankfurt am Main, GermanyThe way chemists represent chemical structures as two-dimensional sketches made up of atoms and bonds, simplifying the complex three-dimensional molecules comprising nuclei and electrons of the quantum mechanical description, is the everyday language of chemistry. This language uses models, particularly of bonding, that are not contained in the quantum mechanical description of chemical systems, but has been used to derive machine-readable formats for storing and manipulating chemical structures in digital computers. This language is fuzzy and varies from chemist to chemist but has been astonishingly successful and perhaps contributes with its fuzziness to the success of chemistry. It is this creative imagination of chemical structures that has been fundamental to the cognition of chemistry and has allowed thought experiments to take place. Within the everyday language, the model nature of these concepts is not always clear to practicing chemists, so that controversial discussions about the merits of alternative models often arise. However, the extensive use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in chemistry, with the aim of being able to make reliable predictions, will require that these models be extended to cover all relevant properties and characteristics of chemical systems. This, in turn, imposes conditions such as completeness, compactness, computational efficiency and non-redundancy on the extensions to the almost universal Lewis and VSEPR bonding models. Thus, AI and ML are likely to be important in rationalizing, extending and standardizing chemical bonding models. This will not affect the everyday language of chemistry but may help to understand the unique basis of chemical language.https://doi.org/10.3762/bjoc.16.137chemical bondingchemical ontologieschemical structure formatschemical structure representationchemical structure modelslanguage of chemistryquantum chemistry
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Timothy Clark
Martin G. Hicks
spellingShingle Timothy Clark
Martin G. Hicks
Models of necessity
Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry
chemical bonding
chemical ontologies
chemical structure formats
chemical structure representation
chemical structure models
language of chemistry
quantum chemistry
author_facet Timothy Clark
Martin G. Hicks
author_sort Timothy Clark
title Models of necessity
title_short Models of necessity
title_full Models of necessity
title_fullStr Models of necessity
title_full_unstemmed Models of necessity
title_sort models of necessity
publisher Beilstein-Institut
series Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry
issn 1860-5397
publishDate 2020-07-01
description The way chemists represent chemical structures as two-dimensional sketches made up of atoms and bonds, simplifying the complex three-dimensional molecules comprising nuclei and electrons of the quantum mechanical description, is the everyday language of chemistry. This language uses models, particularly of bonding, that are not contained in the quantum mechanical description of chemical systems, but has been used to derive machine-readable formats for storing and manipulating chemical structures in digital computers. This language is fuzzy and varies from chemist to chemist but has been astonishingly successful and perhaps contributes with its fuzziness to the success of chemistry. It is this creative imagination of chemical structures that has been fundamental to the cognition of chemistry and has allowed thought experiments to take place. Within the everyday language, the model nature of these concepts is not always clear to practicing chemists, so that controversial discussions about the merits of alternative models often arise. However, the extensive use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in chemistry, with the aim of being able to make reliable predictions, will require that these models be extended to cover all relevant properties and characteristics of chemical systems. This, in turn, imposes conditions such as completeness, compactness, computational efficiency and non-redundancy on the extensions to the almost universal Lewis and VSEPR bonding models. Thus, AI and ML are likely to be important in rationalizing, extending and standardizing chemical bonding models. This will not affect the everyday language of chemistry but may help to understand the unique basis of chemical language.
topic chemical bonding
chemical ontologies
chemical structure formats
chemical structure representation
chemical structure models
language of chemistry
quantum chemistry
url https://doi.org/10.3762/bjoc.16.137
work_keys_str_mv AT timothyclark modelsofnecessity
AT martinghicks modelsofnecessity
_version_ 1724169309247242240