I do Scientific Research because I want to understand WHY things do what they do and WHY they are what they are. I am an individual researcher, not affiliated with any company or research organization. I publish my results on this site, in peer-reviewed journals or both.
I've studied, worked in, and produced results for subjects from quantum mechanics to astrophysics, software development to automotive engine control system design, human management systems to product development and production systems. Only Quantum Mechanics/ Quantum Chemistry, Quantum Molecular Dynamics, Statistical Mechanics, and Chaos Theory truly give me the insight to understand WHY things do what they do and WHY they are what they are. That's why these areas are the focus of my Research.
Quantum Chemistry
Quantum Chemistry is the application of the concepts and methods of Quantum Mechanics to the solution of problems of chemical interest. Simply stated, Quantum Chemistry uses the basic principles of electrostatics and wave theory (subject to well defined approximations) to develop mathematical representations of atomic and molecular species. These mathematical representations can then be used to understand the chemical behavior of those atomic and molecular species both as static and dynamic systems - at the atomic scale.
Statistical Mechanics
Statistical Mechanics is the discipline that takes known behavior of how molecules interact (from Quantum Chemistry) and provides methods for scaling up that understanding so it can be applied to real world systems. For example, using Quantum Chemistry we can determine how two water molecules interact with each other. Using Molecular Dynamics (a Statistical Mechanics methodology derived from Classical, Newtonian Mechanics) and our knowledge of how two water molecules interact (i.e. the appropriate Force Field), we can simulate the real world behavior of a glass of water.
In addition, the use of Quantum Chemistry to develop generalized, reaction-inclusive Molecular Mechanics Force Fields (e.g. ReaxFF) allows us to use Molecular Dynamics and reactionaly inclusive Force Fields to simulate chemically reactive systems over a long enough period of time so that we can actually approach an understanding and prediction of macroscopic behavior based upon the use of these Force Fields. Bill Goddard's group at Cal Tech have been doing marvelous work in this area and have allowed me access to some of their tools which I will use in my research.
Quantum Molecular Dynamics
As previously indicated, Quantum Chemistry uses the basic principles of electrostatics and wave theory (subject to well defined approximations) to develop mathematical representations of atomic and molecular species. The "well defined approximations" include
- nuclear motion can be fixed since we're only interested in the behavior of the electrons which move much faster than the nuclei
- each electron sees only the average effect of all the other electrons. Any individual electron interaction with another specific electron is ignored.
- the system of interest is static, i.e. doesn't change with time.
These assumptions are OK as long as we don't want to study the dynamic behavior of a chemical system, e.g. during a chemical reaction. Quantum Molecular Dynamics relaxes these assumptions and allows the study of dynamic chemical systems.
Note: Quantum Molecular Dynamics is an excellent tool for studying many systems. However, with the advent of reaction-inclusive Molecular Mechanics Force Fields, it may become less utilized.
Climate Modeling
Climate Modeling is a very topical subject with the so-called "Science" of Jim Hansen at NASA and his chief acolyte, Al Gore, being used to terrify the populace into giving Hansen more money. It is also being used to give politicians (like Gore and the rest of the Left) more control over our lives via Cap and Trade and other "Carbon Footprint" taxes as well as restrictions on how and where we can live via huge increases in costs for utilities and personal vehicles.
Hansen and Gore claim Hansen's work is "peer reviewed" and a majority of the "general scientific community" agrees with Hansen's apocalyptic predictions of doom. Well, it turns out Hansen's work is NOT peer reviewed because he refuses to release the details of his methods and models to anyone who might possibly disagree with him. So, his peers are not allowed to review his work and thus cannot be claimed to be supportive.
With respect to the majority of the "general scientific community" being the deciding factor of the correctness of any scientific theory, irrespective hard evidence to the contrary, this concept is anathema to real science. Since, for example, the majority of the "general scientific community" thought for many years that outer space was filled with an ethereal vapor, or, for example, the majority of the "general scientific community" thought the Earth was flat, the reliance on the view of the majority of the "general scientific community" is just stupid.
Anyway, having performed work in this area as a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, I am interested in dissecting the current models, understanding their strengths (and weaknesses) and then, dispassionately I hope, providing simulations that are agnostic in their view and untainted by politics or grant funding to steer their results.
Chaos Theory
Many physical systems in nature exhibit unusual, organized, apparently chaotic behavior. For example, some chemically reacting systems display bands of structure during their reaction which disappear when the reaction is complete. Water, when heated almost to the boiling point, exhibits 'filament' like moieties that move through the water and then dissipate. These manifestations of 'organized but apparently chaotic behavior' are illustrations of the physical phenomena Chaos Theory help us to understand.