Rational: constitution, 94 formulas

On this occasion, Brodie clearly interchanged the roles in chemical explanation of the rational or constitutional formula and the molecular model, because the rest of his lecture is a critique of the formula. 

In her comprehensive study of the rise of physical organic chemistry, Mary Jo Nye says that only a minority of his contemporaries and immediate successors agreed with Butlerov about the possibility of writing "true rational formulas" (Nye, 1993, p. 102). One very significant member of that minority, van t Hoff, asserted in 1884 that chemistry was somewhat belatedly experiencing the second of two phases through which all sciences pass, in which phase it becomes "rational or philosophic." Furthermore, according to van t Hoff, rational studies in chemistry are characterized by a movement to connect the constitutional formula with the properties of the substance "As all the properties of a body arise from the intimate relations of its constituents, one can easily foresee that in the future the constitutional formula will, after further development, be able to tell us exactly and completely the properties of the bodies they represent" (Hoff, 1884, p. 2 emphasis added). 

Which of the different rational formulae must be used in given cases is largely a matter of convenience (Zweckmassigkeit). . . rational formulae are only formulae representing the reactions and are not constitutional formulae. They. . . are in no way intended as expressing the constitution, i.e. the arrangement of the atoms in the substance formed ,... 

Such being the rational formula of leuoin, its transformation into leueio acid by nitrous acid determines the constitution of leuoio aeid... 

Thus, the wavelength-frequency relation (2.1) implies the Compton-effect formula (2.10). The best we can do is to describe the phenomena constituting the wave-particle duality. There is no widely accepted explanation in terms of everyday experience and common sense. Feynman referred to the experiment with two holes as the central mystery of quantum mechanics. It should be mentioned that a number of models have been proposed over the years to rationalize these quantum mysteries. Bohm proposed that there might exist hidden variables whieh would make the behavior of each photon deterministic, i.e., particle-like. Everett and Wheeler proposed the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics in which each random event causes the splitting of the entire universe into disconnected parallel universes in whieh eaeh possibility becomes the reality. 

In the system of typical formulae all substances are coDBidered as being so constituted that ih rational formuhe may be referred to one of three classes or types, or to s combination of two of- these types. These three classes, being named after the most common substance occurring in each, are expressed thus ... 

The sense of triumph of Kolbe and Frankland was to be short-lived, for, coincidentally, Williamson s first ether paper appeared at the same time as Kolbe s major review paper. Curiously, though, on a deeper level the work of Frankland and Kolbe had much in common with Williamson s, for all three chemists were atypically interested in questions that did not much exercise their colleagues striving toward the determination of absolute constitutions of molecules and expressing those constitutions using rational formulas that could be interpreted mechanically and realistically. 

Most importantly, Wurtz asserted that the main lines of Couper s theory were not, despite his protestations, irreconcilable with either radical or type theory, considering especially the most recent modifications of those theories. "In general," he wrote, "1 find M. Couper s formulas too arbitrary, too distant from experiment." Rational formulas are not intended to show the "intimate constitution of compounds," only reactions "hence their advantage." In sum "It is too much of hypotheses, and it is wrong to present these things as if they were handed down by God. In this respect M. Kekule, who seems better to have understood the sense and import of the ideas which he was the first to express, wisely wrote at the end of his memoir, As for me, I attach but a secondary importance to considerations of this sort. " Wurtz failed to take this opportunity to affirm that he had Couper s paper in hand at the time Kekule s second theoretical paper was published. In several subsequent historical accounts of the rise of structure theory, Wurtz mentioned Couper s independent formulation only once, and that in a footnote. It does appear that Wurtz and Couper had clashed personally, and this may have ever after influenced Wurtz s treatment of his former student. His reticence fully to acknowledge Couper s substantial accomplishment is out of character for Wurtz s notably wise and generous personality. 

---