Glauber theory

In the days of alchemy and the phlogiston theory, no system of nomenclature that would be considered logical ia the 1990s was possible. Names were not based on composition, but on historical association, eg, Glauber s salt for sodium sulfate decahydrate and Epsom salt for magnesium sulfate physical characteristics, eg, spirit of wiae for ethanol, oil of vitriol for sulfuric acid, butter of antimony for antimony trichloride, Hver of sulfur for potassium sulfide, and cream of tartar for potassium hydrogen tartrate or physiological behavior, eg, caustic soda for sodium hydroxide. Some of these common or trivial names persist, especially ia the nonchemical Hterature. Such names were a necessity at the time they were iatroduced because the concept of molecular stmcture had not been developed, and even elemental composition was incomplete or iadeterminate for many substances. 

Salt formation as a criterion for an acid-base interaction has a long history (Walden, 1929). Rudolph Glauber in 1648 stated that acids and alkalis were opposed to each other and that salts were composed of these two components. Otto Tachenius in 1666 considered that all salts could be broken into an acid and an alkali. Boyle (1661) and the founder of the phlogistic theory, Stahl, observed that when an acid reacts with an alkali the properties of both disappear and a new substance, a salt, is produced with a new set of properties. Rouelle in 1744 and 1754 and William Lewis in 1746 clearly defined a salt as a substance that is formed by the union of an acid and a base. 

R J Glauber, in Coherent States in Quantum Theory, Mir, Moscow, 1972, p 26... 

Gibson model, 38 174-176 Gillespie-Nyholm valence shell electron-pair repulsion theory, 18 325 Glass-formers , 4 294 Glauber s salt, 4 17... 

The climax of French iatrochymistry was the work of Nicholas Lemery, whose Cours de chymie of 1675 will be treated in Chapter Three. But two other chymists of the mid-century deserve comment. Le Fevre identified them as The subtil van Helmont, and the laborious Glauber, the two Beacons and Lights which we are to follow in the Theory of Chymistry, and the best practice of it. These two, Johann Glauber and Joan Baptista van Helmont, are significant exceptions to the textbooks tradition of seventeenth century chemistry. Both maintained an extraordinary emphasis on experimental observations, even while returning to mystical philosophical positions. 

So far we have not been able to treat chains with bond correlations in more than one dimension. The introduction of more detailed or realistic models of local conformational processes, such as those of Reneker34 or of Schatzki,35 has, therefore, not been feasible. We may remark that the theory of dielectric relaxation by Work and Fujita,36 which applies Glauber s methods25 to delayed (dynamic) correlations between chain dipoles, is also in essence a one-dimensional affair. 

Lefebvre acknowledged Paracelsus, van Helmont, and Glauber as the most ingenious and exact Artists who provided the Beacons and Lights for the theory and the practice of chemistry. ... 

Coulon, C., Clerac, R., Lecren, L., Wemsdorfer, W., and Miyasaka, H. (2004) Glauber dynamics in a singlechain magnet from theory to real systems. Physical Review B Condensed Matter, 69, 132408. 

The theory of neutron scattering from vibrating molecules was developed by Zemach and Glauber. Recently, the method was applied to complex biological substances (bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor). ... 

Here we will first compare the implication of the DRIS formalism with the predictions of the kinetic Ising model of Glauber [39] and discuss the results in relation to the theory of Shore and Zwanzig [40]. It should be noted that the model of Glauber is of fundamental importance, inasmuch as this is the first work in which the Markov character of a chain is rigorously considered and an analytical expression is provided for the time decay of correlation functions associated with a linear array of pairwise interdependent units. In the second part of this section, some empirical expressions previously proposed for describing OACFs, will be considered. 

Fig. 4. Time dependence of the first OACF obtained from the indicated three different theories. The curves are arbitrarily shifted along the vertical axis for visual clarity. Three different degrees of intramolecular coupling are considered in the Glauber model, as indicated by the value of the parameter y in each case. Three time regimes separated by the vertical bars are distinguished in the presence of internal cou riing, yielding different values of stretched exponent, sudi that P is close to unity at short times, becomes 0.7 at intermediate times, and increases again at terminal portions of the curves...

---