[hallenrm]

Today morning I was struck by an article in my newspaper, it was about the time it takes to hard boil an egg. Someone had raised this point in New Scientist a couple of decades ago, but nobody since then has been able to give an accurate physics chemical formula for the same. The reasons are not very difficult to imagine, the time taken would depend on a number of factors, for instance on the salinity of the water, the ambient temperature, the fame temperature etc. etc. to name just a few.

The question that arose in my mind is as follows, all chemistry students invariably do an experiment in chemical kinetics, and they do observe a predictable time period for a reaction, in fact often the experiments are related to clock reactions . The why this paradox.

Doesn't it indicate that science gives predictable results only when the conditions are simple, just like one body problems of physics. As soon as the system becomes multi variate it is of little help.

Cooking is a multivariate process. Although akin to chemical processes; whether it is really a chemical process, a student studies in a chemistry laboratory is debatable!

[C1ay]

Yes, in short, cooking is a reaction between ingredients caused by heating.

[quatumrulesoverall]

To me, I think cooking is a process of making a lot of things come into contact and then give rise to the change for all of them. For instance, adding suger to lemonade, putting cheese on bread. As long as things can contact in some sense with other things, there is a chemical process ) : cheers.

[TheBigDog]

Cooking is pure chemistry. But you can scare kids away from it by telling them that. My favorite cooking show is "Good Eats", hosted by Alton Brown. He dives into the science of cooking like a modern day Mister Wizard, while sticking to a dish or ingredient theme of some sort. Excellent viewing for the science curious.

Bill

[quatumrulesoverall]

A little bit interupting, hehe are you sure that kid is gonna run away, if they know that, pure chem applies in cooking, their interest would rise. 49.99% garuantee you !!! (: P.S I believe in quantum so, the chance is just 50 % 50 %)

[Mercedes Benzene]

Cooking is just one of the numerous ways that science (particularly chemistry) enters our lives on a daily and intimate level.

Cheers!

[Chemnut]

I believe the converse of this is true also.

A chemical practice is kind of like cooking.

Procedures carried out in the lab are like following a recipe in a cookbook. Both have ingredients, and if treated according to the procedure, yield predictable results.

[Mercedes Benzene]

I believe the converse of this is true also.

A chemical practice is kind of like cooking.

Procedures carried out in the lab are like following a recipe in a cookbook. Both have ingredients, and if treated according to the procedure, yield predictable results.

That is very true indeed my friend!

[hallenrm]

Originally Posted by Chemnut

I believe the converse of this is true also.

A chemical practice is kind of like cooking.

Procedures carried out in the lab are like following a recipe in a cookbook. Both have ingredients, and if treated according to the procedure, yield predictable results.

No, not all chemical processes are like cooking. The number of ingredients, the chemical substances present in the food being cooked invariably far exceed the number of substances involved in a chemical reaction being performed in a laboratory. Therefore the results of a cookery are not always as predictable as told in a cookbook, otherwise good chef's would not be so much valued.

[hallenrm]

Although, all chemical practices carried out in a chemistry laboratory, apparently look like cooking, they are much simpler then cooking. Remember, a cook has to keep in mind many intricate factors of the product in mind than a chemist. A chemist can do with less or more yield of the products, because the ultimate product has to undergo several steps of purification. A fine cook can seldom afford this luxury.