NASA NTRS1972
In 1929 London 1 published a very approximate solution of the Schroedinger equation for a system of chemical interest: H3. To the extent that chemistry can be regarded as existing separately from physics, this was a landmark in the history of chemistry, comparable in importance to the landmark in the history of physics marked by the appearance of the Heitler-London equation for H2. The expression for H3, was, of necessity, even less accurate than that for H2, but chemists, like the habitual poor, were accustomed to this sort of misfortune. Together with the physicists they enjoyed the sensation of living in a renaissance. The physicists still could not calculate a great deal that was of interest to them, and the chemists could calculate less, but both could now dream. It would be too easy to say that their dreams were dreams of unlimited computer time. Their dreams were a lot more productive than that. Two years after London published his equation, H. Eyring and M. Polanyi obtained the first numerical energy surface for H3. They infused the London equation with a measure of empiricism to produce an energy surface which, whether or not it was correct in its details, provided a basis for further speculations of an important sort. The existence of a tangible energy surface in 1931 stimulated speculation along two different lines. The following year Pelzer and Wigner used this London-Eyring-Polanyi (LEP) energy surface for a thermodynamic treatment of the reaction rate in H + H2. This important development reached its full flowering a few years later. In these remarks I shall be concerned with another line of development. A second more-or-less distinct category of speculation that began with (and, indeed, in) the 1931 paper has to do with the dynamics of individual reactive encounters under the influence of specified interaction potentials.