Gone but not forgotten
In this reminiscence I discuss the influence of Henry Eyring and John Barker upon my life and work. Others, especially my family, have been of even greater personal influence. However, these two great and grand men were of tremendous scientific influence. Of course, others who came before Eyring and...
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2015 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Інститут фізики конденсованих систем НАН України
2015
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Condensed Matter Physics |
| Online Zugang: | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/153522 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Zitieren: | Gone but not forgotten / D. Henderson // Condensed Matter Physics. — 2015. — Т. 18, № 1. — С. 13001: 1–7. — Бібліогр.: 16 назв. — англ. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-153522 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-1535222025-02-09T13:44:10Z Gone but not forgotten Вони вiдiйшли, але їх не забули Henderson, D. In this reminiscence I discuss the influence of Henry Eyring and John Barker upon my life and work. Others, especially my family, have been of even greater personal influence. However, these two great and grand men were of tremendous scientific influence. Of course, others who came before Eyring and Barker, especially Boltzmann and van der Waals and later Onsager and Eyring's contemporary, Kirkwood, have been influential, but only indirectly as I never met them. Eyring and Barker are not the only scientists who have inspired me. Many who influenced me have contributed articles to this special issue or have worked with me. I single out Eyring and Barker because I met them early in my career and because they have passed away and are now present only in spirit. They are gone but should not be forgotten; I take this occasion to remind the readers about these two outstanding scientists and fine men and offer this reminiscence as thanks to them. 2015 Article Gone but not forgotten / D. Henderson // Condensed Matter Physics. — 2015. — Т. 18, № 1. — С. 13001: 1–7. — Бібліогр.: 16 назв. — англ. 1607-324X DOI:10.5488/CMP.18.13001 arXiv:1504.00805 PACS: 01.60.+q, 01.65.+g, 64.10.+h, 82.20.-w, 82.20.Kh https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/153522 en Condensed Matter Physics application/pdf Інститут фізики конденсованих систем НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| description |
In this reminiscence I discuss the influence of Henry Eyring and John Barker upon my life and work. Others, especially my family, have been of even greater personal influence. However, these two great and grand men were of tremendous scientific influence. Of course, others who came before Eyring and Barker, especially Boltzmann and van der Waals and later Onsager and Eyring's contemporary, Kirkwood, have been influential, but only indirectly as I never met them. Eyring and Barker are not the only scientists who have inspired me. Many who influenced me have contributed articles to this special issue or have worked with me. I single out Eyring and Barker because I met them early in my career and because they have passed away and are now present only in spirit. They are gone but should not be forgotten; I take this occasion to remind the readers about these two outstanding scientists and fine men and offer this reminiscence as thanks to them. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Henderson, D. |
| spellingShingle |
Henderson, D. Gone but not forgotten Condensed Matter Physics |
| author_facet |
Henderson, D. |
| author_sort |
Henderson, D. |
| title |
Gone but not forgotten |
| title_short |
Gone but not forgotten |
| title_full |
Gone but not forgotten |
| title_fullStr |
Gone but not forgotten |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Gone but not forgotten |
| title_sort |
gone but not forgotten |
| publisher |
Інститут фізики конденсованих систем НАН України |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| url |
https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/153522 |
| citation_txt |
Gone but not forgotten / D. Henderson // Condensed Matter Physics. — 2015. — Т. 18, № 1. — С. 13001: 1–7. — Бібліогр.: 16 назв. — англ. |
| series |
Condensed Matter Physics |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT hendersond gonebutnotforgotten AT hendersond vonividijšlialeíhnezabuli |
| first_indexed |
2025-11-26T10:14:21Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-11-26T10:14:21Z |
| _version_ |
1849847522130919424 |
| fulltext |
Condensed Matter Physics, 2015, Vol. 18, No 1, 13001: 1–7
DOI: 10.5488/CMP.18.13001
http://www.icmp.lviv.ua/journal
Gone but not forgotten
D. Henderson∗
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Brigham Young University, Provo UT 84602-5700
Received June 16, 2014
In this reminiscence I discuss the influence of Henry Eyring and John Barker upon my life and work. Others,
especially my family, have been of even greater personal influence. However, these two great and grand men
were of tremendous scientific influence. Of course, others who came before Eyring and Barker, especially Boltz-
mann and van der Waals and later Onsager and Eyring’s contemporary, Kirkwood, have been influential, but
only indirectly as I never met them. Eyring and Barker are not the only scientists who have inspired me. Many
who influenced me have contributed articles to this special issue or have worked with me. I single out Eyring
and Barker because I met them early in my career and because they have passed away and are now present
only in spirit. They are gone but should not be forgotten; I take this occasion to remind the readers about these
two outstanding scientists and fine men and offer this reminiscence as thanks to them.
Key words: chemical kinetics, theory of liquids, perturbation theory
PACS: 01.60.+q, 01.65.+g, 64.10.+h, 82.20.-w, 82.20.Kh
Isaac Newton, in one of his few modest moments, said that the reason that he could see so far is be-
cause he stood on the shoulders of those who preceeded him. This is true of us all. Boltzmann and van der
Waals have providedme with great insight. More recently, Onsager and Kirkwood, provided foundations
upon which I have built. However, I know those gentlemen only through their work. I knew and worked
with both Eyring and Barker and admired them greatly. Of course, I have workedwith and admiredmany
others. Many have contributed to this issue. Henry Eyring and John Barker were important scientists in
my career and good friends but have passed away and cannot participate in this volume. They have gone
but are not forgotten.
Henry Eyring (1901–81)
Henry Eyring appears in figure 1. This is a painting that hangs in foyer of the Universiy of Utah
chemistry building.
I first became aware of Henry Eyring when I was quite young. My mother told me excitedly that she
had learned in a church class that one could prove the existence of God by science. Prove is really too
strong a word. My mother misunderstood. Rather the author of the lesson used the example of a power
series to demonstrate that by one could approach God in successive, hopefully convergent, steps. Later,
when talking with Henry Eyring, I learned that he was the author of this lesson.
My first real contact with Henry was as an undergraduate at the University of British Columbia, when
Frank Peters, a friend who was majoring in metallurgy, drew my attention to the fact that Henry Eyring,
a member of my church, was to be a seminar speaker at the university. Frank was impressed by Henry’s
breadth of knowledge, his lucid presentation of his ideas, and his friendly manner. It was no coincidence
that a few years later I found myself to be Eyring’s research student at the University of Utah.
Eyring was not born into a scientific family. He was born in Colonia Juarez, a small town in northern
Mexico. Colonia Juarez may be found by looking at a map of northern Mexico and following the railway
line southwest from El Paso for around 200 kilometers to Nuevos Casas Grandes and then going west on
∗E-mail: doug@chem.byu.edu
© D. Henderson, 2015 13001-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.5488/CMP.18.13001
http://www.icmp.lviv.ua/journal
D. Henderson
Figure 1. Henry Eyring.
a secondary road for about 20 kilometers. Colonia Juarez is at the end of this road. The major industry of
the region is the growing of fruit. However, Henry’s father was a rancher with a large herd of cattle. The
railroad was very valuable for the export of produce from the region.
At the time of Henry’s birth, and to a somewhat lesser extent today, Colonia Juarez was populated
mostly by Americans and decendents of Americans. The word “Colonia” gives the impression to English
speakers of a colony of people who came to exploit the locals, get rich and then retire to their homeland.
People in Utah tend to refer to Colonia Juarez and similar towns as the “Mexican colonies”. However,
in Mexico, the word colonia has the connotation of a neighborhood. For example, the neighborhood of
Mexico City in which Rose-Marie and I lived for a few years is Colonia del Valle. The residents of Colo-
nia Juarez came to stay. Henry’s father became a Mexican citizen. Henry was a Mexican citizen until
he became a naturalized US citizen in the mid 1930’s. The Mexican revolution changed things and, for
safety, the Eyring family departed hurriedly on the railroad with their friends and neighbors and went
to El Paso. Many of his relatives returned to Mexico when the situation stabilized but after some soul
searching Henry’s family went to Arizona, where they cleared their land, farmed and lived in reduced
circumstances. It is worth noting that Henry contributed to the payment of the mortgage on the farm for
a number of years after he left home.
Henry went first to the University of Arizona in Tucson and then to the University of California in
Berkeley, where he obtained his PhD in chemistry. A few years after graduation, he married Mildred
Bennion; they went to Germany, where he was a post-doctoral fellow at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute
(now the Max Planck Institute) in Dahlem, a suburb of Berlin. While there, he and Polanyi [1] made the
first quantum mechanical calculation of the energy surface for a chemical reaction. On his return to the
US, he spent a short stay at Berkeley, where his first son was born, and then settled in as a faculty member
at Princeton, where he ultimately became a professor of chemistry. While at Princeton his family grew
with the addition of two more sons. At Princeton, he developed [2] what he called absolute reaction rate
theory, with which his name is forever associated. Either the Eyring-Polanyi energy surface calculation or
his rate theory was worthy of a Nobel Prize but one never came. Some of Henry’s associates were shocked
(their word) by this oversight. Henry accepted this in good grace.
By the time that I met Henry, he had moved to the University of Utah, where he became the founding
Dean of the Graduate School of the university. Although he was a dean, he still taught classes in his
office and had PhD students. I met Henry when he wore all these multiple hats. While at Princeton,
Henry became interested in developing a theory of the liquid state. This interest was due to the fact that
his reaction rate theory required the partition functions of the reactants. His classic rate theory paper
considered low density gases and needed only the partition function of an ideal gas. However, many
important reactions occur in liquids and for this the partition function of a liquid is needed. At Princeton
he developed a cell model of a liquid. When applied to a low density fluid, this model lacks a factor,
exp(N ), that appears in the entropy of an ideal gas. This factor should appear in a natural way but Eyring
reasoned that inserting the factor, even arbitrarily, was preferable to not having it at all. He called this
rather arbitrary term the communal entropy because it was a measure of the multiple occupancy of the
13001-2
Gone but not forgotten
cells and was shared by all the molecules.
Subsequently, Eyring thought that a lattice model should have empty sites or cells with holes. He
reasoned that, when a liquid molecule evaporated, it left an empty cell behind. He regarded these holes
as approximate mirror images of the vapor molecules. The entropy of mixing of the molecules and holes
provided the communal entropy. If the liquid consisted of molecules and holes that exactlymirrored the
vapor molecules, the sum of the densities of the coexisting liquid and vapor phases should be a constant.
This provided a simple qualitative explanation of the law of rectilinear diameters, where the observed
sum of the densities of the coexisting vapor and liquid is not a constant but is a linear function of the
temperature. Extending this idea, Eyring suggested that the partition function, Z , of a liquid could be
written as
Z = Z
Vs
V
s Z
V −Vs
V
g , (1)
where Zs, Zg, Vs and V are, respectively, the partition functions of the solid and ideal gas phases, and the
molar volumes of solid and liquid phases. For Zs and Zg, the partition functions of the Einstein model of
a solid and the ideal gas were used. Empirical parameters were used in Zs and for Vs.
Equation (1) suggests that the heat capacity, C , of liquid argon should be
C
N k
= 3
Vs
V
+
3
2
V −Vs
V
, (2)
where N is the number of molecules in the liquid, k is Boltzmann’s constant, and T is the temperature
of the liquid. This result is remarkedly accurate. It does fail to predict the singularity of the heat capacity
at the critical point. Eyring’s critics made too much of this ‘failing’ since their theories also shared this
failing. Eyring called this procedure the significant structure theory of the liquid state [3]. The name was
chosen because Eyring thought that the molecules and holes were the significant structural elements
of a liquid. I was put to work applying these ideas and presented the result for a thesis. The prospect
interested me because at the time the lack of a theory of the liquid state was regarded as one of the major
stumbling blocks in science. For me, significant structure theory did not remove this stumbling block.
The removal of the stumbling block came when I worked with Barker a few years later and when he and
I had spectacular (John Rowlinson’s term) success.
Significant structure theory is not a true theory; it is a description. It provides no insight into the re-
lation of the thermodynamic properties of a liquid to the intermolecular interactions between the liquid
molecules. It is an interpolation formula to pass between the solid and gas phases. The critics of signifi-
cant structure theory were too harsh because it does focus on the essential importance of the volume or
density and assigns a lesser role to the temperature in determining the properties of a liquid. This became
clear as a result of the work of Barker and me. At the time of my graduate work, the reverse was thought
to be the case. Also, it is worth noting that equation (1) implies that the portion of the free energy of a
liquid that results from those molecules that have not evaporated contains a term that is proportional to
Vs/V , or to the density, of the liquid. This is similar to the ideas of van derWaals. I will return to this point
shortly.
After graduation, I tried to develop a more rigorous theory of the liquid state that involved holes or
vacant cells. I had mixed success in this endevour but I did publish a paper that captured the interest of
John Barker. Despite my apostasy from significant structure theory, Henry and I remained close. He in-
vited me to join with him and Jost in editing a multi-volume treatise on physical chemistry. I was nervous
about this and wondered if I was into something that was over my head. However, it worked out. The
treatise was a success.
Despite the fact that, as time passed, Henry’s work had become somewhat out of the main stream of
theoretical chemistry, I really enjoyed my association with him. He was an exceptionally kind man. He
helped me and my wife when we needed his support. He was modest and did not feel that he was any
better than anyone else. He was genuinely interested in the personal and professional details of anyone
he met and spoke with. He had a facility to make a person feel at ease in his presence.
He was also an engaging speaker. Perhaps he was at his best when he spoke about his research at
Princeton into the effect of pressure on the behavior of tadpoles. The tadpoles would swim normally
at atmospheric pressure but under pressure they behaved erratically and then behaved normally again
13001-3
D. Henderson
when the pressure was reduced. Henry, when speaking about this experiment would act the part of the
tadpoles and alternate between a normal state and an apparently intoxicated state while commenting
on the effect of alcohol on the brain (he did not use or approve of alcohol as a beverage). The talk was
hilarious and it was obvious that he was enjoying himself enormously.
John Adair Barker (1925–95)
John Barker appears in figure 2, a photograph that was given to me by his widow, Sally.
Figure 2. John Barker.
John was born in Corrigin,Western Australia, which is about 200 kilometers southeast of Perth. While
he was young, he and his family moved to Red Cliffs in Victoria, Australia. Red Cliffs is near Mildura
and is about 500 kilometers northwest of Melbourne. Similarly to Eyring, he grew up in a relatively
isolated farming community. In fact, prior to jet aircrafts, Australia was perhaps even more isolated than
Colonia Juarez. His father was a country medical doctor. John attended high school at a boarding school
in Melbourne and then attended the University of Melbourne. At least once, presumably as an adventure,
he chose to return home to Red Cliffs for school vacations by bicycle. His friends in Australia are still in
awe of this feat that is indicative of John’s vigor.
John graduated from the University of Melbourne in physics and mathematics. One of his professors
was H.H. Corben, the author of an influential book on classical mechanics. Interestingly, Imet Bert Corben
and his wife by chance some years later in a restaurant in Mexico. John might have proceeded immedi-
ately to a doctoral degree. However, a family tragedy led to his spending a, not very happy, year teaching
mathematics at a secondary school in England. During the long trip, by ship, back to Australia, he met
Sally Johnston, whom he married soon after they had both arrived in Australia. They had two sons and
a daughter. Since he now had a family to support, graduate studies were out of the question so he joined
CSIR (now CSIRO), a federal government scientific organization, as a scientific officer in Melbourne. He
was initially hired to provide theoretical support to the experimental work of Ian Brown. However, John
was soon working independently and rose through the ranks of CSIRO to become a chief research officer.
Several years after joining CSIRO, he presented a summary of his research as a thesis and was awarded a
DSc degree by the University of Melbourne.
13001-4
Gone but not forgotten
Some of his early work at CSIRO involved the use of perturbation expansions. However, like Eyring
andmany other contemporaries, Barker felt that since the density of a liquid was similar to that of a solid,
a lattice approach was the appropriate starting point for the development of a theory of the liquid state.
His approach was more mathematical than the intuitive style of Eyring. Barker started with a lattice but
attempted to introduce disorder and multiple occupancy in a systemmatic manner. Although perturba-
tion expansions were employed in his lattice theory of liquids, Barker did not fully return to perturbation
theory until I appeared on the scene about fifteen years later.
As I have mentioned, after obtaining my doctorate, I attempted to develop, with mixed success, the
ideas of Eyring regarding holes in a lattice in a more systematic manner. Soon after graduation I pub-
lished a paper that caught Barker’s attention. He, and the Chief of the Physical Chemistry Division of
CSIRO, Sefton Hamann, wrote tome and invitedme to come toMelbourne andworkwith Barker. I replied
positively and enthusiastically since I had admired the work of Hamann and Barker for some time but
I was married and had two (soon three) small children and could not just take up and go. However, I
arrangedmy affairs and as soon as I had accumulated enough ‘credits’ at the University of Waterloo for a
sabbatical, and with the assistance of Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Ian Potter Foundation fellowships,
I went to Melbourne to work with John.
While at CSIRO in Melbourne, I was asked to give a series of lectures. By this time, I was drifting away
from lattice theories. In my lectures, I discussed some recent work on perturbation theory about which I
had just learned prior to coming to Melbourne. I discussed some recent papers of Rowlinson [4], Frisch et
al. [5], andMcQuarrie and Katz [6] who had attempted to start with a hard sphere fluid as an unperturbed
or reference system and apply a perturbation expansion. The hard sphere fluid was an attractive starting
point because there were accumulating data from simulations for the thermodynamics and structure of
this fluid and, especially through the work of Wertheim [7, 8], convenient and accurate theoretical ex-
pressions for their thermodynamics and distribution functions. At the time the evidence was that these
perturbation theories were interesting but applicable only to gas well above its critical temperature but
not to a liquid because the temperature of a liquid was apparently too low for a perturbation series to
converge. This led to Barker and me wondering whether this was due to the manner in which the repul-
sive part of intermolecular potential was treated and to themanner inwhich the intermolecular potential
was divided into the potential of the unperturbed or reference fluid and the perturbation energy.
We decided that, to avoid these questions, we should consider first a system in which the repulsion
was exactly hard. Before I went to Melbourne, Berni Alder had told me of his (as yet unpublished) molec-
ular dynamics simulations for a hard sphere fluid with a square well attractive potential. Such a square
well fluid seemed ideal for our needs. I wrote Berni and he generously agreed to provide his results in
advance of publication. We found that the agreement of our expansion, to first order, with the, as yet
unpublished, simulation results of Alder and the earlier simulations of Rotenberg [9] was promising and,
with the inclusion of an intuitively attractive approximation for the second order term, the results of our
version of perturbation theory gave excellent results for the entire liquid region [10].
Thus encouraged, Barker and I devised a scheme for treating the fact of the repulsive part of a more
realistic intermolecular potential. The repulsive part of the intermolecular interaction of a realistic fluid,
although very steep, is not infinitely steep. In our scheme, the perturbation expansion was formally the
same as the earlier expansion based on a hard sphere reference fluid but now the diameter of the unper-
turbed hard sphere fluid was a function of the temperature.
We obtained [11] the following expression for the Helmholtz function of a fluid.
A− A0
N kT
=
1
2
ρβ
∫
u1(R)g0(R)dR−
1
4
ρβ2
∫
[u1(R)]2kT
[
∂ρg (R)
∂p
]
0
dR+·· · , (3)
where ρ = N /V , the subscript 0 indicates that the quantity is that of the reference hard sphere fluid, and
R is the distance between the centers of the molecules (or hard spheres). The function g0(R) is the ra-
dial distribution function of the reference fluid. The radial distribution function is strongly dependent on
the density. However, the integral of u1(R)g0(R) is nearly constant. The approximate second order term,
given in equation (3), is very useful for many systems. We called this approximation the compressibility
approximation. This approximation can bemade even more simple by neglecting the density dependence
of g0(R) in the the integral in the second order term. Praestgaard and Toxvaerd [12] extended the com-
pressibility approximation to obtain an estimate for the higher order terms.
13001-5
D. Henderson
It is worth noting that if the series is truncated at first order and if the density dependence of g0(R)
in the integral is neglected, the first order term is a linear function of ρ, just as it is in the van der Waals
and significant structure theories.
Perturbation theory has been very useful and important. It was, as stated by Rowlinson, a spectacular
advance. It was the first successful theory for the liquid state. My stay in Melbourne was an exciting year.
Interestingly, our theory uncovered an error [13] in some simulations of liquid mixtures. This is one of
the very few instances that theory has corrected a simulation.
Additionally, perturbation theory clarified the problemwith integral equation theories of liquids. The
integral equation theories tended to yield poor results for the pressure. The reason for this is that the
route from the radial distribution function (RDF) to the pressure is very sensitive to errors in the RDF. By
contrast, perturbation theory relies on the free energy, which is not so sensitive. In fact, we [14] showed
that if an integral equation approach is used to calculate the energy and if the free energy is then obtained
by numerical integration and then the pressure is obtained by numerical differentiation, excellent results
are obtained. Of course, all this numerical integration and differentiation is cumbersome. Much of the
reason for the success of the mean spherical approximation is that, for some systems, the free energy and
pressure can be obtained from the energy without numerical integration and differentiation.
Subsequently, Weeks et al. [15] and my former graduate student, Bill Smith, together with Keith Gub-
bins and their colleagues, [16] developed an alternative version of perturbation theory that is based on a
different division of the potential into reference and perturbation terms. This approach leads to a more
rapid convergence. However, with the compressibility approximation for the second order term, equa-
tion (3) is equally accurate and as user friendly as this approach. The two approaches are equivalent for
fluids with a hard core.
The last part of Barker’s career was devoted to obtaining accurate results for interactions between
molecules and surfaces. His expression for the interaction potential between the inert gas molecules was
highly accurate. He found that the evidence about the pair interactions between argon molecules that
was obtained from viscosity and scattering experiments was inconsistent. He made a bold step of aban-
doning the viscosity results and proposed an useful expression for the argon pair potential. It is bold for a
theoretician to use theory to reject experimental results. New viscosity experiments supported his view.
Barker’s last project concerned the interaction of gas molecules with surfaces. His passing prevented the
completion of this work.
No matter how well you know someone, you never know everything. After John passed away, I
learned that he wrote poetry.
Concluding remarks
It is interesting for me to note that I am a coauthor of Eyring’s last scientific work, a book, and that
Barker’s last publication was a generous appraisal of me and my work. I have also mentioned Sefton
Hamann, another distinguished scientist. He helped facilitate my year in Melbourne. I never worked
closely with him but did like him. Years later, and after both Eyring and Barker had passed away, I had an
occasion to spend a couple of weeks at the University of Melbourne and during my stay had lunch with
Sefton and his wife, Elizabeth. Sefton and I discussed how the “established” theories of liquid mixtures
failed to account for some of the properties of liquid mixtures that interested him. Subsequently, Sefton
and I showed in a simple way how perturbation theory provided the insight that he was seeking. After
Sefton’s passing, I was told that this was Sefton’s last paper. I seem to specialize in last papers. As an added
evidence of this, I mention that I am a coauthor of the last papers of Peter Leonard, one of my students.
My colleagues should be aware that any paper they publish with me may be their last. I debated about
whether I should include Seftonmore fully in this reminiscense but decided not to do so. I admired Sefton
but did not work closely with him as I did with Henry and John.
There are some echos of Eyring in my life. We are members of the same, small but growing, Church.
We both lived in Mexico for a period. He and I worked in a copper mine while we were students. He
worked and my parents (but not me) lived in Dahlem in west Berlin.
A comparison of Eyring and Barker is difficult and not very meaningful. However, an attempt is re-
quired. Eyring’s work was uneven. His later work was not as important as his early work. Barker’s work
13001-6
Gone but not forgotten
was more even but not as influential as Eyring’s early work. In any case, both were outstanding scientists
and splendid persons and I have great affection for both of them.
The families of Henry Eyring and John Barker have told me that both Henry Eyring and John Barker
regardedme as an honorary family member. I am grateful for this. In any case, they both were admirable
men and scientists. I am better as a scientist and a person for having known and worked with them.
References
1. Eyring H., Polanyi M., Z. Phys. Chem. B, 1931, 12, 279 (in German) [Z. Phys. Chem., 2013, 227, 1221;
doi:10.1524/zpch.2013.9023].
2. Eyring H., J. Chem. Phys., 1935, 3, 107; doi:10.1063/1.1749604.
3. Eyring H., Ree T., Hirai N., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1958, 44, 683; doi:10.1073/pnas.44.7.683.
4. Rowlinson J.S., Mol. Phys., 1964, 8, 107; doi:10.1080/00268976400100141.
5. Frisch H.L., Katz J.L., Praestgaard E., Lebowitz J.L., J. Phys. Chem., 1966, 70, 2016; doi:10.1021/j100878a051.
6. McQuarrie D.A., Katz J.L., J. Chem. Phys., 1966, 44, 2393; doi:10.1063/1.1727054.
7. Wertheim M.S., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1963, 10, 321; doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.10.321.
8. Wertheim M.S., J. Math. Phys., 1964, 5, 643; doi:10.1063/1.1704158.
9. Rotenberg A., J. Chem. Phys., 1965, 43, 1198; doi:10.1063/1.1696904.
10. Barker J.A., Henderson D., J. Chem. Phys., 1967, 47, 2856; doi:10.1063/1.1712308.
11. Barker J.A., Henderson D., J. Chem. Phys., 1967, 47, 4714; doi:10.1063/1.1701689.
12. Toxvaerd S., Praestgaard E., J. Chem. Phys., 1970, 53, 2389; doi:10.1063/1.1674336.
13. Leonard P.J., Henderson D., Barker J.A., Trans. Faraday Soc., 1970, 66, 2439; doi:10.1039/tf9706602439.
14. Grundke E.W., Henderson D., Murphy R.D., Can. J. Phys., 1971, 49, 1593; doi:0.1139/p71-186.
15. Weeks J.D., Chandler D., Andersen H.C., J. Chem. Phys., 1971, 54, 5237; doi:10.1063/1.1674820.
16. Gubbins K.E., Smith W.R., Tham M.K., Tiepel E.W., Mol. Phys., 1971, 22, 1089; doi:10.1080/00268977100103401.
Вони вiдiйшли, але їх не забули
Д. Гендерсон
Вiддiл хiмiї та бiохiмiї, Унiверситет Брiгема Янга, Прово, штат Юта 84602-5700, США
У цих спогадах я обговорюю той вплив, який Генрi Ейринг i Джон Баркер мали на моє життя та роботу.
Хоча iншi, особливо моя сiм’я, мали навiть бiльший особистий вплив на мою особистiсть. Безперечно
й iншi, якi прийшли ще ранiше, нiж Ейринг i Баркер, особливо Больцман i Ван дер Ваальс, а пiзнiше
Онсагер та сучасник Ейринга Кiрквуд мали вплив на мене, але лише опосередковано, оскiльки я нiколи не
зустрiчався з ними. Однак Ейринг та Баркер не єдинi вченi, якi надихали мене. Багато з тих, хто впливали
на мене вже подали свої статтi у цей спецiальний випуск або ж працювали зi мною. Я виокремлюю саме
Ейринга i Баркера тому, що зустрiвся з ними на початку моєї кар’єри i тому, що вони вже вiдiйшли i зараз
присутнi лише своїм духом. Вони вiдiйшли, але не повиннi бути забутими. Я користаюсь цiєю нагодою,
щоб нагадати читачам про цих двох визначних науковцiв та чудових людей i пропоную вам цi спогади,
як подяку їм.
Ключовi слова: хiмiчна кiнетика, теорiя рiдин, теорiя збурень
13001-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1524/zpch.2013.9023
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1749604
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.44.7.683
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00268976400100141
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/j100878a051
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1727054
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.10.321
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1704158
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1696904
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1712308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1701689
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1674336
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/tf9706602439
http://dx.doi.org/0.1139/p71-186
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1674820
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00268977100103401
|