Physical Chemistry by Peter Atkins

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the book "Physical Chemistry" by Peter Atkins, focusing on its content, structure, and comparison with other physical chemistry texts. Participants express their opinions on the effectiveness of the book in teaching various topics within physical chemistry, including thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants find "Physical Chemistry" by Atkins to be an inadequate resource, criticizing the integration of multiple complex topics into a single text.
  • One participant notes that while Atkins has authored notable chemistry books, this particular edition has undergone several revisions, suggesting caution regarding which edition is referenced.
  • Another participant points out that many examples in Atkins' book are biochemical, which they view as a positive reflection of modern advances in biochemistry.
  • Some participants prefer alternative texts, such as those by Moelwyn-Hughes and W. Moore, rating them more favorably than Atkins' book.
  • Concerns are raised about the clarity of reasoning in Atkins' explanations, particularly regarding the definition of absolute temperature and its relation to entropy.
  • One participant argues for a division of physical chemistry into four distinct classes, suggesting that the current approach of combining various subjects in one book may hinder understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions on the effectiveness of Atkins' book, with no consensus on its quality. Multiple competing views exist regarding the structure and clarity of the material presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the rigor of explanations, particularly in the quantum mechanics section, and express concerns about the integration of disparate subjects within a single text. These points remain unresolved within the discussion.

For those who have used this book


  • Total voters
    6
Physics news on Phys.org
As far as P chem books go this one is ok but I generally find p chem books bad. It's as if someone decided to teach thermodynamics, stat mech, classical mechanics, e&m and applications in one physics book. Crazy right?
 
Professor Atkins is the author of the moment in physical chemistry and he has produced some cracking chemistry books in the past.

However users of this one should be aware that it has undergone several major revisions so should be careful which edition they refer to.

Many of the examples are biochemical, which is unusual in a physical chemistry book, but in keeping with the modern advances in biochemistry and very welcome.

On balance, I prefer the previous generation book from Oxford by Moelwyn-Hughes or the one by W Moore, both of which I would give outstanding to.

This I would only rate as good.
 
I much prefer Walter J. Moores, Physical Chemistry over Atkins.
The reasoning in Atkins is not very clear and sometimes circular: E.g. he starts to motivate absolute temperature using the ideal gas law and promises to give a precise definition of absolute temperature later. Then he introduces entropy as ##S=\vardelta Q/T## for reversible processes and finally sais that now we can define temperature as ##T=\partial U/\partial S##.
 
Physical Chemistry: A Molecular Approach by McQuarrie is better.

I did not like Atkin's book, just the overall feeling was bad. Many things were not explained rigorously especially in the QM section.

In addition I also believe that Pchem should be split into 4 classes: 2 in quantum chemistry (QM + spectroscopy) and 2 in thermal science (thermodynamics + stat mech). Trying to teach these disparate subjects in 1 book is not going to go well.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K