Chemistry - the theory behind it

When people harp on about chemistry in the midst of dating, what exactly do they mean?

Chemistry is so fickle, but essentially you either have it, or not, and to be honest, it is heavily dependent on characters and mindset. Chemistry perhaps is the catalyst towards the development of a relationship, however that catalyst has the potential to burn out very quickly, or be a catalyst for something which is not quite so much desired.

I've been on a few dates now.. well with at least 2-3 different people in the last few months. One of them I had genuine chemistry with, but unfortunately as quickly as the passion exploded, it ended and I believe although chemistry was still present, our personalities, prejudices and so forth acted as a blocker, or inhibitor for the catalyst, hence the reaction burned out. The rest.. zero chemistry. Things in common? I didn't fancy them. They both had interesting things to say however.

As I've read a few profiles, some people blatantly have a 'type' and are very specific in what they want, compared to others who simply don't have one. Do people believe that they are more likely to have chemistry with their 'type' as they will be physically attracted to them?

Chemistry can be interpreted differently between a couple.. in order for it to exist, it needs to be mutual. One person claiming to have chemistry with the other alone is not enough for the definition I believe.

So putting my chemistry theory to the test I have decided to ask a person I don't know on match out for a spontaneous meet to determine whether chemistry is present or not. No conversational foreplay or pre-discussions.. just.. meet. We shall see the results. In fact I've done this before. No success with chemistry, yet very intelligible conversations.

My second attempt will be to go out on a second date with someone I believed I had no chemistry with.. will see how that goes. Will the chemistry develop in a timely manner..? Will keep you posted!