This is a great article and I'm happy the author mentions "an explanation of combustion exothermicity in terms of Pauling electronegativities is not convincing". I was incorrectly taught this view and it took me some time to unlearn it.
I keep seeing comments about how certain science topics are initially presented in an overly complicated fashion. But there are two forces at play here: correctness versus accessibility. The theory presented in this paper "predicts most heats of combustion with an error of only a few percent". This is good enough for most practical applications, especially if your goal is to introduce students to this topic.
But this is not the most "correct" description of reality that we currently have. A better model to decrease the error would incorporate information about the 3D structures/conformations of the molecules and some funky terms related to the quantum mechanics.
Anybody publishing literature about/teaching something like organic chemistry is stuck between this balancing act of correctness versus accessibility. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that you basically have to unlearn some of the stuff you picked up during the path to "accessibility" in order to properly move into the "correctness" phase. I genuinely sympathize with anybody dealing with the balancing act.
After studying organic chemistry for an extended period of time, it dawned on me that the well-thought-out explanations in my textbooks were just post-hoc rationalizations the field uses to avoid delving into the true quantum mechanical nature of the reactions. I'm happy I sacrificed some correctness for the huge amount of accessibility I got. But I'm also happy to unlearn some of the stuff on my path to correctness.
I keep seeing comments about how certain science topics are initially presented in an overly complicated fashion. But there are two forces at play here: correctness versus accessibility. The theory presented in this paper "predicts most heats of combustion with an error of only a few percent". This is good enough for most practical applications, especially if your goal is to introduce students to this topic.
But this is not the most "correct" description of reality that we currently have. A better model to decrease the error would incorporate information about the 3D structures/conformations of the molecules and some funky terms related to the quantum mechanics.
Anybody publishing literature about/teaching something like organic chemistry is stuck between this balancing act of correctness versus accessibility. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that you basically have to unlearn some of the stuff you picked up during the path to "accessibility" in order to properly move into the "correctness" phase. I genuinely sympathize with anybody dealing with the balancing act.
After studying organic chemistry for an extended period of time, it dawned on me that the well-thought-out explanations in my textbooks were just post-hoc rationalizations the field uses to avoid delving into the true quantum mechanical nature of the reactions. I'm happy I sacrificed some correctness for the huge amount of accessibility I got. But I'm also happy to unlearn some of the stuff on my path to correctness.