What is the Meaning of First Principle in Chemistry?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sandf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Principle
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the meaning and usage of the term "first principle" in chemistry, including its variations such as "first principles" and "first-principle calculations." Participants explore the implications of these terms and their relevance in technical discussions, particularly in the context of chemistry and mathematics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that "first principle" and its variations are synonymous and can be used interchangeably, while others emphasize the context in which these terms are used.
  • One participant raises concerns about the potential for complex terminology to obscure understanding and establish authority in arguments.
  • There is a discussion about the historical context of mathematical proofs, referencing figures like LaPlace and Fermat, and how their approaches to proof relate to the concept of first principles.
  • Another participant notes that first principles often describe a simple understanding that may contradict reality, highlighting the complexities in chemistry.
  • References are made to the phrase "more honoured in the breach than the observance" in relation to the laws of chemistry, suggesting a nuanced view of theoretical versus practical applications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the meaning and implications of "first principle" terminology, indicating that no consensus has been reached. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the appropriateness and clarity of these terms in technical contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the interpretation of terms may depend on the audience's familiarity with them, and there is an acknowledgment of the potential for miscommunication in technical discussions.

sandf
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
What is the difference among the expression of "first principle, first principles, first-principles, and first-principle calculaltion"
Dear all,
I am sorry if the topic is not appropriate in this subForum.
As a chemist, I am confused by the expression of "first principle, first principles, first-principles, and first-principle calculaltion".
In chemistry, we only use "ab-initio".

Best regards.
Youzhao Lan
Department of Chemistry,College of Chemistry and Life Sciences,
Zhejiang Normal University,
Jinhua, Zhejiang,
321004, China.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You could also use 'ex ante' or 'a priori' or 'de primis principiis' ##-## they all have similar meanings ##-## the differences are apt to be of primarily merely stylistic import.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
sysprog said:
merely stylistic import
This can be a problem. Using terms that are way above the basic level of a technical discussion can be seen as a 'weapon' to establish the correctness of an argument. There's probably an equally posh term for that kind of thing. ;-)

I would say that the term 'ad initio' should be used amongst people who also use and recognise it. The way you read "first principle" should perhaps be based on context where it's used. This English language can be a minefield and can carry all sorts of hidden messages which may or may not have been put there deliberately. Many technical discussions can most safely be interpreted using the Maths rather than the linking comments.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Buzz Bloom and hutchphd
sophiecentaur said:
Many technical discussions can most safely be interpreted using the Maths rather than the linking comments.
That's especially true in the case of LaPlace, who was won't to employ such discursive devices as (roughly translated from the French) "wherefore it can easily be seen that", for things that he just couldn't be bothered to prove.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
sysprog said:
That's especially true in the case of LaPlace,
And what about Fermat? He never actually provided a proof of the bombshell he left us with. It was left unproven for a long while, until Andrew Wiles sorted it out twice, 358 years later. A very cheeky 'conjecture' I reckon.
 
sophiecentaur said:
And what about Fermat? He never actually provided a proof of the bombshell he left us with. It was left unproven for a long while, until Andrew Wiles sorted it out twice, 358 years later. A very cheeky 'conjecture' I reckon.
I have a suspicion that Fermat envisioned drawing a graph with a z axis, and showing that while satisfactory triplets were findable in the plane, none that had a non-zero z value could be found in the cube ##-## that would account for his remark that his proof wouldn't fit in the margin ##-## if it was along such lines, it presumably wasn't really a proof ##-## but also presumable is that Fermat would likely have had something more than mere absence of disproving evidence before he would suppose that he had a proof.
 
sophiecentaur said:
This can be a problem. Using terms that are way above the basic level of a technical discussion can be seen as a 'weapon' to establish the correctness of an argument. There's probably an equally posh term for that kind of thing. ;-)
An instructor I had for a college calculus class used to say, "obvious to the most casual observer" or "even my own mother could integrate this."
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
That was fresh for you but, over the years, every poor student got the same smart remark dished up every time. Just like comedians in the old music halls.
 
to the Original Poster, OP,
the terms are identical in meaning, any form of words mentioning First Principle(s), will be talking about the same thing.
Often, First Principles are used to describe a simple understanding, and an expectation - only then to contradict it with the reality.
Chemistry has many such instances, as I'm sure you will know.

The Laws of Chemistry are, as we say in England, amongst physicists, "More honoured in the breach than the observance"

In return, Physicist's simplifications are often referred to as "Spherical Cow" type arguments. I leave you to look that one up..
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: diogenesNY

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K