Rubin Battino Wright State University
Dayton, Ohio 45431
Chemistry and the Sense of Wonder
W h e n I was an undergraduate taking physical chemistry the following conversation took place one day with my friend Ren, who was then a senior in chemical engineering. "I understand you're taking physical chemistry." "That's right." "What are you studying now?" "We're taking up the Clausius-Clapeyron equation now. It. . . ." "The Clausius-Clapeyron equation? How wonderful! That was one of the best parts of the course. The derivation is just lovely. Have you used it to. . ." I was quite startled by this great onrush of feeling for something as inanimate and unworthy of sensation as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. To me and most of my fellow students this was just one more equation to plug numbers into in the seemingly endless march of equations in physical chemistry. That an equation might be something to marvel a t and stand in awe of was not a thought that crossed our minds. How could anyone get excited by an equation? It took me many years to understand this phenomenon and to finally end up making use of many of the same feelings and exclamations that Ben had. Part of the explanation for this is not far off. Words have a mystical, mythical, and magical power. For millenia man had used incantations, chants, and magic words to influence nature. The very naming of an object has a power and a magic in it that is most readily observed in a child's endlessly repeating a newly learned word. Magicians and alchemists, wizards and warlocks all h;ad their special formulae for controlling nature. We do too, only we call our formulae chemical equations. If anything, our chemical formulae and equations are more powerful than t,he wizards' because ours are more realist,ic-they have been tested! The next time you are asked by a student for the reason for studying an equat,ion, tell him that you are letting him in on some special magic that will not only help him pass exams, but will also help him control nature. The Clausius-Clapeyron equation combines in a neat symbolic package the information and knowledge and implied power concerning phase transformations for two phases in equilibrium. It holds for solid-solid transitions, solid-liquid transit,ions, and even for solidvapor transitions. We can calculate latent heats stored in oceans and icebergs and clouds, volume and pressure changes as phases change, and t,he temperPresented in pall hefure the Ilivisim of Chemirnl Edoe~tionht the 166th Nalional Mceling of.the American Chemical Soriety, Atlantic City, New Jwsey, September, 1968.
38
/
Journal of Chemical Education
atures at. which substances boil and melt and sublimate. All of this information is t,idily packed into a few symbols in the Clausius-Clapeyron equat,ion and it is ours to use in imagination or reality. The single chemical relation that has most excited me in t,he reaction isotherm in the form AGO
=
- R T 1°K
=
- n F E G AH"
TASO
This relation unites the concept of free energy with that of equilibrium constants with that of electromot,iveforce with that of calorimetry with that of the abstract notion of entropy. Just imagine, from heat capacity and heat of reaction measurements you can calculate the emf of an elect,rical cell and you can also calculate the equilihrium point in a reaction. You can combine such thermodynamically available data to calculate heats of reaction of emf's or equilibrium constants a t other temperatures. There is a welter of information and knowledge and power in these relationships, and yet most students find them dull or stupid or a waste of time. How has this come to he? How has i t happened that the subject of the study of crystal structure has degenerated into confusion over unit cells rather than amazement a t the microcosmic order which is so heautifully manifested on the macroscopic scale? It is an easy matter to grow crystals and to watch before one's very eyes the varied hut regular forms growing day by day in measured array. How is it that the idea of dynamic equilihrium teamed with the law of mass action just get relegated to another thing that has to he memorized so that the numbers can be plugged i.n properly? I think that the answers to these questions lie in two directions. The first is that we frequently fail to point out to our students the beauty and the magic and the utility of chemistry. How will they ever find out if we do not a t least point the way and directly show them example after example of the insights and the depths which we ourselves see in our subject? One of the things that really helps in this regard is to periodically stop during the semester and review in a qualitative way the material that has been covered. Try to give the students an overview. Try to point out the things which they may have missed. Good times to do this are the lectures immediately preceding midterm and final exams. At these times there is little more that vou can do than give the class a feeling - for the subject .anyway. This brings us to the sccond point which is that the feelings of awe, of incredulity, of wonder, of radical amazement. if not downrieht . . astonishment are feelinas and that t.hese feelings are communicated by emotion.
What I am saying is that, you should put emotion into your lectures and that your physical feclings for and about nature are best transmitted by demonstrating your emotional involvement,. How can students possibly get exeit,ed about something that you find dull or boring or trivial? This is not something to force because then you are being unnatural, but it is something t o let out when you feel it inside. Don't bc afraid to show that you like a particular equation or that some demonstration or phenomenon turns you on. There is nothing quite so catching as ent,husiasm. We are all in chemistry because we see somet,hing special in it. We are all teachers because we want to communieat,e the special things that we see and feel in the subject. If we don't tell our students and if we don't show them, who will? The sense of wonder in chemistry is something that can be taught. It can be taught by imbuingiu students a fceling for t,he awesomeness and grandeur and ineredibilit,~of the world around t,hcm and of the subject, matter of ehemist,ry. The process is one of continually pointing out what there is to wonder about, and eontinually asking questions about the essence of the subject matter of chemistry. The process is also one of sharing our sense of wonder for this sharing is the most potent form of teaching. The nature of wonder is something that has been
pondered by many.' We can wonder both a t what we know (or think we know) and a t what we find unknowable. We can wonder a t the utterly simple and the amazingly complex, a t the tiniest of things as well as the largest, and wonders of wonders, we can also wonder about, t,he nature of wonder! Acknowledgmenl
To my fricnd Ben who opened my eyes to wonder and to Dr. David Karl who kept this paper within bounds. I See, fm example, M\Y, II., L'Mm'-i Remch for Himself," Signet Q 3226, New Americm I.ihrnry, New Ywk, 1967. One way l o upen y w r e y e s to wuiotired beanty is lo ask ymwself, "What if I had n e v a seen this before? Whal if I knew that, I would never see it senin?" fC.\asoN 11.. "The Smse r,f W m -
COCTII.\U). o~.ganisedthem (JIS.IN The words will never starve for lark of wonders, hot m l y for want of wonder (G. K. CHIIXPIIHTUN). What fills us wilh radical amazement is not the ~.elntiowin which everything is embedded tntt the fart that eve11 the minimom af perreptir,n i? a maximum of enigma. The morl ilmmmprehewive fncl is the fact ihal n o r o m p l r h e d at :\I1 . . . . Sriewe exteuds rather than limits iho stupe of the inen'ahle, and o w radical amazement is enhnnred mthel. than reduced by the A. J., ' W a n IS Nqt advancement of knowledge. (HERSCHEL, Alone," Harper & Row, New Yark, 1951.)
Volume 46, Number
I, January 1969
/ 39
