0
$\begingroup$

This is my first post on the meta, please, be considerate to me if I'm not yet using it correctly. I have already asked a serious of questions on this SE section about an emerging field of chemistry I would like to call "complexity chemistry" (this is how I call it, not what its name actually is) and found that this site and community, although professional enough to understand my questions, can't provide me with all the answers I need. The problem is you are the best site I have found on the internet so far as to professional level of actual scientists who do chemistry for a living and aren't just enthusiasts with very limited understanding of the matter. The reality is I have very challenging ideas I want to put to the scrutiny of professional chemists to see would they manage to hold under it?

I have tried various forums on the internet but my impressions from writing about that kind of stuff there are very negative. I think that internet forums are either full of enthusiasts who can't understand what you are talking about or with people trying to spread different kinds of pseudosciences to an uneducated public. This is why they seem entirely worthless to me and I had given up on them. When I found that community I too was very sceptical at the beginning due to my bad history with the internet but now I can say I have faith in the people here and I think they are professionals who understand their fields. However, my research interests seem to be a bit "off" of the model the site is promoting, so could you advice me where I can find a community of real actual researchers in chemistry on the internet where I could present my ideas and ask my questions. I will be very helpful if you could do that. Or is it that this site and community is the best there is right now on the entire Internet and I'm already in the best place possible?

$\endgroup$
9
$\begingroup$

Unfortunately, as far as I know, SE might be the closest thing to what you are looking for, but it still is not going to be able to address the type of questions you have. The question and answer format here isn't particularly well suited to the types of questions you have asked here and the community is likely too small to have people that are specialists in a subfield of chemistry which by your own admission is still in its infancy.

That leaves two routes that I can think of for you to find people to discuss this topic with:

  1. For more open ended questions or general discussion topics, you might be able to use a chatroom here and hopefully find people who are interested in talking over an idea with you. As I said above, I think it will be tough to find someone here who is specifically an expert in this new field, but people may be able to help with different smaller points that come up.

  2. Alternatively (and I believe this is the better option) you could look through the literature and find papers that relate to complexity chemistry. If you find someone whose work interests you or who you think can address certain concerns you have, try to get into contact with them. I don't know your exact situation, but depending on how far along you are education wise this could lead to discussions with these authors, working under them towards a PhD, or even collaborative projects with the hope of publishing a few papers together.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ my problem is I have done enough by myself to come up with a preliminary "plan"(I call it a blueprint) of as to what I want to do and what experiments have to be done to pursue my ideas. However, the fact I have a blueprint doesn't mean a thing because it has to be put to the test to see if it's the real thing or bullshit. The questions I'm asking here are the first parts of this blueprint. So far it's holding up as far as I can see but there are more things I need to know. I want to first understand is my blueprint realistic and then see who, how and when can do it. $\endgroup$ Oct 11 '17 at 0:05
  • $\begingroup$ What I need are chemists-I mean true chemists not some amateurs over a god-forsaken forum on the Internet to tell me am I proposing something realistic or am I out of my mind here? You can find amateurs and enthusiasts as many as you like on the Internet, but what you can't find are actual working researchers in chemistry. What I need is to get my work evaluate first and this is why I'm asking questions here-to see whether I'm living in a illusion or in reality. If this stuff is real the next steps would be clear-to start mining for compounds that can create an artificial biochemistry and $\endgroup$ Oct 11 '17 at 0:12
  • $\begingroup$ try to see could I create an experimental set-up where all these compounds can mix up to create the "seeds" of complexity I envision. Then, may be the end result will be something useful for the nanotech. but if my blueprint is bullshit nothing of this would happen. This is why the first thing I need to do is to find chemists that could evaluate my concepts and take me seriously. Here I have at least some non-0 chance of doing it. On the world wide web my chances are nonexistent and I don't know any chemists willing to help me right now. This is why I'm here and am asking the questions I ask. $\endgroup$ Oct 11 '17 at 0:17
  • $\begingroup$ If I manage to pass at least that "scrutiny check" may be I will have my chances in the real-world, too. But how would I know if I don't try it first? $\endgroup$ Oct 11 '17 at 8:12
5
$\begingroup$

We have a diverse user base at Chemistry.se, ranging from high school students to professors. While this includes "enthusiasts", which I think there is nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about chemistry, the site is set up to cater to experts (or becoming experts) in the field (and adjacent fields). However, our user base is compared to other places rather small. In principle you will find "real actual researchers in chemistry" here, maybe just not the ones you are looking for.

However, for the questions you are asking here you need to consider a few things.
Pitches for your own personal theories or work are off-topic. (What topics can I ask about here?) In principle that means that chemistry stack exchange is not a place to conduct genuine research. Especially open-ended questions do not fit our format. We aim to produce a library of well-catered questions and answers, to be helpful to many current and future users of this site.
As such, it is very important to understand, that we are not a discussion forum. This site is not designed to have a back and forth conversation. While we have a chat room functionality for discussions related to questions and answers (or chemistry in general), it is not the primary use of this site.

In the past you have asked questions which were all deemed to be too broad by (the necessary quorum of) the community. Additionally, and that is my own personal point of view, they are very long, repeating itself, miss context, have no clear aim, and sometimes simply come across as incoherent rambling, and while you may be asking one thing, you are actually interested in something completely different.

Unfortunately the internet is a good place to hide one's identity if you care so, which also means that you will probably not find the place you are looking for. You may want to follow Tyberius' advice and seek contact with the authors of articles that you find interesting, probably pursuing cooperation with them.

$\endgroup$
19
  • $\begingroup$ Unfortunately Martin, the thing is I can't put everything up in the space of only 1 question, I don't have the ability to write a paper yet, I'm not expert in the fields I need to be, I only have an idea about the "organization" I need to create, e.g. the cybernetics, not the actual compounds I need to create it, I lack touch to people in the fields and have many more problems to consider. This huge list of problems is what I need to solve if I want to get from just an idea to an actual research proposal which could be funded in the real world. I right now want to know the answer to only one $\endgroup$ Oct 11 '17 at 8:18
  • $\begingroup$ question. To put it bluntly: Is my idea out of touch with reality or is it something radically new able to open great prospects for the future? I'm convinced I can't answer the question myself. Only a professional researcher can do it. I need to be able to present my ideas to professional research chemists and be able to get they answer. I just want to know will it be yes or no. And that is a Q&A format. The problem with this site is the damn questions are too short for me and I can't cope with the length. But if I could only get that yes/no answer my purpose here will be done. $\endgroup$ Oct 11 '17 at 8:24
  • $\begingroup$ @YordanYordanov I'm afraid the answer is no and you're wasting your and our time; even though you didn't state you theory clearly, or maybe also because of this. You could waste all your life not getting anywhere with this :( $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Oct 11 '17 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ I think it's a life worth wasting! Even if I could create only the blueprint of a future technology that could change mankind, it's an effort worth trying! May be it's true my questions up to now aren't enough to see clearly what I'm after, this is why I will tell you clearly out here. If we could know more about that "complexity chemistry" I'm now talking about, may be we can know when and how we could create extremely complex chemical systems able to both replicate their components and to create even more complex components, which too are able of self-replication. Do you agree it's possible? $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ Then, these new components, which could be anything from a few hundred daltons relatively "simple" molecules, up to self-assembling complexes of hundreds of molecules the size of an organelle, can serve as "seeds" of complexity to new systems much simpler than the original ones they developed into. Thus, the process of "seeding" of complexity can continue up from very complex (and complicated) systems of hundreds, if not thousands of reactions, among very large organic compounds up to a single "seed", $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 8:10
  • $\begingroup$ may be even a single molecule able to start the process of complexity generation in much simpler systems, even as simple as mere solutions of petrochemicals which every petroleum refinery can produce in huge quantities. It's how we could generate extremely complex chemistry using just a few molecules instead of whole factories doing hundred of steps long organic synthesis for months, if not years. And I believe it's an exact replica of how life originally came to be on that planet. Can you now understand why I believe there is some fundamental, although not obvious, connection between the fiel $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 8:13
  • $\begingroup$ of the origin of life and nanotechnology? It's not easy to see but it's there! If we could create such "seeds", then we could probably create an entire industry for the creation of these "seeds" and could perfect the process of their creation to a degree where we could synthesize many different groups of them which could in their turn build diverse "biochemistries" of different groups of highly complex organic compounds, even build entire molecular "ecosystems" of many interacting "seeds" which can yield particular complex compounds as the results of their activities. Thus, we could synthesize $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 8:17
  • $\begingroup$ huge quantities of those compounds the same way we can use bioreactors today to synthesize huge quantities of viable compounds much cheaper than the current organic synthesis can produce them. If we get the "seeds" to work for us we can both immensely increase the diversity and the complexity of the compounds we could be able to create in the field of highly complex organic synthesis. By then, only God knows what could we use these compounds for. $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 8:21
  • $\begingroup$ However, I highly doubt there will be no use for them. Very big and complex organic compounds may have thousands of various uses, especially if we could "evolve" their molecules the same way we can evolve enzymes today by manipulating their genes. But instead of manipulating the genes behind enzymes, we could be manipulating the "seeds" behind these compounds. You must very well know current biotechnology has its limits imposed by the number of aminoacids and the structure of proteins they impose. Modern proteins aren't very thermoresistant and may impose too limited structure on the compounds $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 8:26
  • $\begingroup$ they create. However, if we could create a huge "library of biochemistries" able to produce vast number of different compounds we may come to a combination of "seeds" such that we could create compounds with better properties than the proteins have-more thermoresistant, better catalysts of certain reactions and even able to self organize into extremely complex structures as the myosin fibers, the plant cell wall or the spider silk are today. However, could you imagine spider silk so thermoresistant it can keep its properties even under 1000 degrees heat? If it turns out to be viable technolo $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 8:32
  • $\begingroup$ and if we could be able to perfect it may be in a few decades we could end up with a huge variety of extremely useful products that could be build out of petrochemicals in "seedreactors" just like compounds are created today in bioreactors for a cost just a tiny fraction of the one which will have to spend if we were to build them with a standard step by step organic synthesis. Can you now see the potential of such technology or do you consider it impossible? $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 8:39
  • $\begingroup$ The problem is: is it even possible to create reaction systems able to go into a state radically different that is their equilibrium one (chemical oscillators) and could such a change be forced upon the systems by even a single molecule of a compound able to start a chain of reactions irreversibly driving the system out of the equilibrium it would never be able to return back into? As far as I know modern chemical oscillators return to an equilibrium state after the oscillator has run out of new reagents and the reaction driving it can start again any time new reagents are added, am I correct $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 8:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YordanYordanov Too many words, no content. I'm sorry, but I do not have the time to read this wall of text. $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 8:50
  • $\begingroup$ It means the reaction is reproducible and the oscillator can only run at a "circular orbit" reproducing over and over again the same states and reactions it had been. Right? But what if we could build an oscillator able to change the reactions driving it themselves? Could it mean it will be able to evolve into new states and the system will not be able to return to the one equilibrium state it initially was into? $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 8:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Mithoron , so your answer is, you wouldn't even bother to understand what I have to say before dismissing it? It's the kind of reaction why I haven't been able to find even a single chemist to get interested in my ideas up to now and why I'm probing the Internet and came to this site and ultimately why I asked this question. Is SE just like all the rest of the Internet where all the people do is just empty talk without ever even trying to use the huge abilities an entire community of specialists can open for advaning ideas? $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 8:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .