/sci/ - Science & Math

Maybe they just mixed shit first then figured out afterwards what was going on. That's what I always imagined was going on, but maybe Chem is different to Maths.

>>11899443
I knew math was just adding random numbers together!

>>11899427
>home organic chemistry as a hobby
I'm probably going to just synthesize DMT and LSD for a living

>>11899427
>on't even get me started with sh*t like enantioselective reduction of ketones with oxazaborolidines. you must be a god to discover that.
corey gets jerked off enough as it is, lol

I think with reagents like PCC and DCC couplings, there's a logical progression. chromates were known oxidants, you just needed to slow them a bit; and anything that binds strongly to oxygen makes good acid couplings (POCl3 is the same idea, I think).
Do you ever read the original papers for fun?

desu save for those few poindexters whose name is in half of published studies, everyone else seems to be just looking at past reactions and thinking of a recipe that wasn't tried before

While we're here, I might as well ask about cheminformatics and shieet. Like, is that IBM Rxn not working just for me or something? Are there any reaction databases whhich are free or have exploitable trials? I have found this one, it's no Scifinder but it has free trials: https://www.spresi.com/

>>11899876
Reaxys

>>11899427
It still blows my mind how people were able to characterize structures without nmr

>>11900320
>Reaxys
gooby pls
>free or have exploitable trials

>>11899427
>i'm just an idiot who likes mixing together chemicals by copying other people's recipes. maybe i'm meant for industry, not grad school.
i'm not a chemist but this hit really hard for me for some reason. i've never done anything innovative in my life. the closest i've gotten was almost implementing a research paper, or almost prototyping a proof of concept jit compiler, but i failed at everything that wasn't well known

>>11899427
>tfw taking the biocatalysis pill and discovering/developing exotic functionalizations and massively reducing the number of steps to get there

>>11902400
bio labs are miserable to work in

>>11902400
enzyme fucker pls go

>>11902575
>Bio

ew

do you think someone just thought to themselves hmmm let's add exactly that chemical and that one and that one, i know exactly what is this going to lead to...

no. future knowledge is built on past knowledge. papers are written based on already existing papers and experimental chemistry is based primarily on trial and error. yes, we have a lot of theoretical tools in our toolbox. but if you want to discover something that's innovative, something hitherto undiscovered, you will have to make predictions and test them. no one plays god. and if you have ever found yourself flabbergasted by the utmost specificity of organic syntheses (how some of these reactions require extremely specific catalysts, solvents, concentrations, temperatures, refluxing for an apparently arbitrary amount of time), keep in mind that there wasn't some super-gifted megamind who instantly planned the pathway while also analysing the consequences. nope. it was the result of extensive testing and predicting, based on information we already have and data that was gathered during experiments (you won't believe how even an apparently insignificant bit of information can be very helpful in the long run). that's why it takes years to write an insightful paper. but one thing's for sure: during those years a lot of research was conducted and a lot of testing was done so as to discover the perfect conditions and numbers for the reaction to occur.

>>11899427
AI is doing this for 'us' already.

One thing I find amusing about chemistry/chemist is that three of the most common artificial sweeteners (saccharin, aspartame, sucralose) were all discovered by chemists accidentally tasting stuff during lab work.