/sci/ - Science & Math

Based mathbrain encounters the real world for the first time, baffled by it not being a clean equation.

>>11801436
>Why does chemistry seem so inferior to physics
Because Atheists killed the father of chemistry before he could finish developing the subject in their ""Enlightenment"" aka Reign of Terror.

>>11801453
It just seems that chemistry is mostly memorization.

>>11801501
Nah, you just have to spend even more ridiculous amount of hours in it to see the patterns, cause they're not as clean as mathematical formulas.

>>11801436
Just because you're too retarded for chemistry doesn't make it inferior.

>>11801436
>so smart he cannot understand
We're hitting levels of Big Brain here, previously thought impossible!

>>11801521
I grasp most concepts in physics easily so I'm not that dumb but chemistry just seems like any idiot could get an MSc if they practice rote memorization enough. You couldn't do that in an MSc in physics or math.

>>11801509
imagine this mathlet cope

>>11801628
All of learning is memorization, retard

>>11801436
because the entire field of chemistry need reworked and is fundamentally broken

i know exactly how to fix it too, but im not telling any one of you

>>11801632
No, there's a difference between memorization and rote memorization. You can't pass any advanced linear algebra course or a course on quantum mechanics just by rote memorization. You can, however, pass almost any chem course by using rote memorization.

>>11801436
It is exactly that. They have no clue since quantum physics is still an epic fail. All that spin and shit is retarded and proven wrong.
>>11801495
you mean kikes?

>>11801436
>implying physics and chemistry are not the same thing

>>11801628
>>11801501
>>11801436
if you think chemistry is just memorization then clearly you've only taken at the most early undergrad chem.
yes early chemistry is largely memorization but the field is not. it's just this way at the beginning because it's way easier to teach the plurality of nursing/med school babies how to memorize basic rules than it is to teach them the quite complicated fundamentals.

>>11801632
What did he mean by this

>>11801906
They're not though. Chemistry is physics's retarded cousin.

>>11801436
Nah you just want an excuse for sucking at chemistry.

>>11801495
>Because state-worshippers killed the father of chemistry before he could finish developing the subject in their ""Enlightenment"" aka Reign of Terror.

There. Fixed it for you.

>>11801632
behold: the NPC

>>11801974
>not true anti-theism
cope

>>11801918
Nah, most chemistry is memorization. You can get a PhD in most chemistry fields just by rote memorization, you can't do the same when pursuing a PhD in physics or math. You'll get to a BSc at the most.

>>11801436
>>11801453
>physics is mathbrain
This is bullshit. I can get through any math textbook easily regardless of how proof heavy it is. Physics is a fucking uphill battle all the way just to get past a single chapter. Every physics textbook I've seen has been complete bullshit, they explain things horribly and always try to "apply it to the real world" before actually explaining what's going on.
I remember I read in one book something called the "right hand rule" I think. Basically, you imagine yourself grabbing a vector I believe, and then the direction of your thumb indicates which direction the resultant goes on the z-axis. I spent hours thinking about, then days, I still couldn't fucking understand how or why it worked. Every time I tried to use it I got confused on which vector I was supposed to "grab" and how that indicated the direction on the z-axis at all. The book didn't even explain why it worked (which it never ended up working anyway, for me, considering I didn't understand how to fucking use it), it just told you to do it with a shitty graphic of how your supposed to interpret it. This is all after having taken a Physics class in highschool and knowing generally how things actually work, I can't imagine going into slightly higher levels of Physics with no background knowledge and trying to understand these retard explanations.
If anyone can recommend me a Physics textbook that isn't so fucking bad and aimed towards catering to retards who can only grasp things visually and with "real like applications!" then please do. I genuinely want to learn Physics, and I want to be interested in it, but this shit is so fucking stupid.

>>11802065
that's interesting, care to show your chemistry PhD?

>>11802065
No you can't.
>>11801631
I have a math degree and he's right. Physicists are also mathlets.
>>11801501
Everything at the undergrad level is rote memorization unless you choose to dig deeper.

>>11801436
And math somehow isn't?

>>11802225
>I can get through any math textbook easily regardless of how proof heavy it is.
>I remember I read in one book something called the "right hand rule" I think
Why do you lie on the internet? The right hand rule is purely a convention on which normal direction is to be picked given 2 vectors.
[math] \hat x \times \hat y = \hat z \\
\hat y \times \hat z = \hat x \\
\hat z \times \hat x = \hat y \\
\hat y \times \hat x = - \hat z \\
\hat x \times \hat z = - \hat y\\
\hat z \times \hat y = - \hat x[/math]
thumb X fingers = facepalm

It's also the convention on how to assign an axis direction for rotations
vector x (infinitesimal rotation) = axis
fingers curling around the rotation -> thumb in the axis direction

>>11802225
>doesn't know where the right-hand rule comes from

Wow, sounds like you're just retarded and can't do math

>>11801436
Its not inferior, it just has a very different culture. For a lot of chemistry the "philosophical" framework is in place - i.e. balls and sticks.
I'd argue chemistry is far broader than physics in scope, under the same name you have everything from quantum/computational chemistry (basically physics) to biochemistry!

The reason there are lots of rules is because it is dealing with the experimental, real, messy world. Some of the rules are quite elegant and have a real impact on chemical science (Wades rules).

>>11802351
>>11802361
Maybe you guys didn't read what I wrote. The textbook gave absolutely no explanation of where the rule came from or any other way of finding the resultant of direction. I still don't understand what it's supposed to represent and have never seen it show up anywhere else outside of this textbook. My high school teacher also never mentioned it. The textbook never mentioned the table you posted or anything resembling that sort of logic, it simply showed the graphic of 'how to' use the right hand rule. I've never seen this "rule" mentioned anywhere outside of this one textbook.

>>11801436
Uncanny Valley

>>11801436

I feel sad knowing that you’ll never grasp the elegance of chemical transformation, or the perfect convergence of matter and energy

Being good at math is super cool tho, congrats

>>11802065
>You can get a PhD in most chemistry fields just by rote memorization
Wow, I didn't know you could memorize yourself through wet lab research and original writing

>>11803260
>I still don't understand what it's supposed to represent and have never seen it show up anywhere else outside of this textbook
You never took vector calculus or matrix algebra?

>>11803758
No, maybe I was acting a bit retarded concerning my math skills in the first post. I've only recently started getting into college level maths and am picking up Serge Lang's Graduate Linear Algebra soon. I know quite a bit of differential/integral Calculus although some of what would be taught in a Calculus 2 class is lacking, as I've mostly stopped learning Calc and instead have been focusing on reading through some works concerning grammar/logic/rhetoric, along with Basic Mathematics by Serge Lang, Men of Mathematics by E.T. Bell, and the Holy Bible (King James Version).
When I said I could go through a book that taught completely through proofs I wasn't lying, although I know it seems like that considering I haven't studied very much higher level math. Most proofs that I've seen aren't very difficult to understand at all, and formulating proofs doesn't generally take me much time (that is, for things that I'm learning, of course it would be a lot more difficult to prove myself some of the more difficult concepts in math).
Concerning matrix algebra, yes I learned it (at least basic matrix algebra they teach you in highschool), but I don't recall at all anything to do with a right hand rule at all.

>>11801436
chemistry is full of contradictory rules and memorization. see hard the soft acid base concept.
>>11801453
chemistry students are lousy at math

>>11803792
>Serge Lang's Graduate Linear Algebra
he never wrote a book on "graduate linear algebra", he wrote a book titled "Algebra" about abstract algebra at a graduate level

>>11802225
Physics books are shit since they don’t want to bring complex analysis/extremely hard differential equations into the picture for derivation. You have to have a genuine good teacher or great intuition to prove everything in the textbook, if not, then you need to accept it for now and derive it later using complex math

>>11802065
>>11801733
Absolute bullshit. Biology has loads of memorisation but the idea that you can just memorise chemistry is laughably wrong. Even undergrad chem will have reactions you've never seen before in the exams and you have to know the fundamentals to work out what is going to happen. You've clearly never gone beyond the most cursory introduction to chemistry but found it too hard and gave up.
The absolute level of cope is astounding.

>>11803933
You know there are physics books that aren't written for mathlets and use Complex Analysis, Group Theory, etc right? Oh wait, you don't because you're a mathlet yourself and think that because your copy of Young and Freedman in your physics 101 class doesn't have that, that all physics books are like that. Absolute fucking retard.

>>11803923
Meant, undergraduate, not graduate.
https://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Undergraduate-Texts-Mathematics/dp/0387964126
>>11803933
It's not about the lack of proofs, it's about the lack of math in general. It seems like everything I see in Physics books, even at highschool levels, is always explained for retards, to the point where it genuinely takes me much longer than it should for me to understand. Not because it's difficult, but because they're always explained in such a roundabout and long way when definitions, 'mathematical' processes, and explanations could be condensed immensely. In many of them too, they explain things in such a way that it loses meaning, i.e simplifying shit that is already very simple so that brainlets can understand, then repeating it over and over again for a few paragraphs.

>>11803300
>big eyes and mouths scary
>muh uncanny
Ape

>>11801436

Having earned graduate degrees in physics and chemistry, i assert the op is a pompous undergrad.

>>11801955
False.
Chemistry is the fun uncle that makes drugs.

>>11802065

Says the guy without a degree in either field

>>11803260

Nobody continued reading what you wrote after the right hand rule comment. We're all embarrassed for you.

Hey hey hey hey all you faggots
You know what?
Fuck chemistry I hate that shit
Last year I took my A Levels and guess my scores:
Maths: A* because shit makes sense
Further Maths: A* because more math is good
Physics: A* cause it's the only non bs science
Chemistry: a fucking B
That bullshit was filled with organic reactions for recognizing functional groups that you know what? I didn't give a FUCK about. So much rote memorization "hurr durr if you make this kind of compound react with this obscure compound the solution will change color" ad infinitum
All chemists can fucking line up to give me a rimjob because this shit of a subject does NOT deserve attention

>>11804466
>t.intro student

>>11804466

All chemical reactions are governed by physical rules.

You're likely bad at patterns unless they're simple.

>>11804442
I don't fucking understand it. I don't know any LinAlg, and I haven't bothered to learn Multivariable Calculus, which are apparently the two places where this "right hand rule" shows up. I'll repeat it again: The book DID NOT explain why the rule works, it DID NOT explain any alternatives to it, it DID NOT give any mathematical/symbolic meaning to it like the other anon did with his table, it simply gave two small graphics of how it can be used along with a couple paragraphs of how you do it. But apparently, every braindead fucking physics fag picks this up without question and is able to use it easily? Maybe it's just that I'm an undiagnosed autist and have trouble applying these visual representations to problems? Because thus far I've simply seen it as similar to those math homework problems they give to 1st graders to explain addition/subtraction, the type where it seems like fucking alien runes to anyone above that age. The physics-tard sees these things and is able to grasp them without explanation or background because they are so unequivocally stupid that the brainlet writing makes sense to them, but to anyone above their level, it's incomprehensible without the mathematical background for it.

>>11804466
based

>>11804536
It's literally just the cross product. Brainlet.

What type of chemistry are you doing exactly? If it is General Chemistry type stuff, then I can somewhat see your point. But if its related to organic, biochem, graduate level work,or anything beyond some dipshit, weed-out, intro level class, you're terribly wrong

>>11804540
>it's literally just the cross product
Then why didn't the book mention some way for me to find the direction of the resultant vector besides "hurr durr visualizing" me holding some axis? Why did it only ever mention the two shitty graphics in the margin?
p.s, the only visual it showed for the right hand rule was similar to pic related, it never said anything about holding the index finger/forefinger/thumb at right angles to each other which seems to be the main way of doing this. I still don't know how that would work regardless.

>>11804557

The right hand rule is useful describing any physical system that has curl.

>>11804557

Left hand rule would have also worked as a convention, except lefties are evil.

>>11802361
this, if he's apperently so "good at math" but couldnt figure out that the right hand rule comes from the definition of the 3d vector product lmaoooooo

>>11804557
what """physics textbook""" were you reading holy fucking shit.
Don't confuse university level physics that is teached for future theoretical physicists with high school stuff aimed at the general population.

>>11804557
Because spoonfed babies need to be filtered away from the secret tism club

>>11804620
I was reading the one recommended on the /sci/ wiki:
http://dl.booktolearn.com/ebooks2/science/physics/9780321696861_university_physics_with_modern_physics_c2cc.pdf
It is high school stuff, but I need to get past the highschool stuff if I ever want to get anywhere near the cool physics, don't I? I'm serious, if you have a recommendation for a better textbook regarding introductory physics that explains things more in depth, I'll read it.
Pic related is where it talks about the right hand rule, it's explained in the last paragraph of the image along with the graphic 1.29 on the right.

>>11804639
the thing is, modern physics is "math heavy" and what you're doing rn doesnt help at all understanding the more advanced stuff. It sadly takes some effort to really understand and see the beauty of how our world works. The way they teach it in university makes most sense I think, and they use this approach for a reason.
The path is the following. First you get a solid mathematical foundation. This is the most important part. The more work you put in here, the easier the physics will be later. This usually takes about 1.5 years in continental europe. After that you treat classical physics with the same formalism that you later apply to some extent in quantum mechanics. So that the transition from classical to quantum looks and feels very natural. Otherwise you will just have to continue learning alot of rules without seeing the reasons behind it.

Physics students may be better at math than chemistry undergrads, but the chemistry undergrads are more skilled in a lab than physics undergrads.

>>11804669
>First you get a solid mathematical foundation
Which subjects will be important to transfer to physics? Like I said I know Calculus well enough except multivariable, which shouldn't be difficult to learn, and I'm picking up a LinAlg book soon (probably Lang's). Is there anything else I should learn before really starting to study Physics itself?
>After that you treat classical physics with the same formalism that you later apply to some extent in quantum mechanics
How would I go about doing this once there? I've seen pic related posted quite a bit but I'm unsure whether or not it's a just a meme, especially considering it begins at the top with the same textbook that I posted here (although I've seen Taylor's book on Classical Mechanics posted quite a bit).

>>11801521
It's just boring regurgitation, the lowest form of intelligence, monkey brain shithead.

>>11804639
This is from my mechanics book. It's swedish, but you can look at the definitions and images.

>>11804722
I still don't get it, how would it even be possible to get a resultant facing the opposite direction then? Meaning, if the magnitude of the resultant is 'negative', then it should go the opposite direction on the z-axis, should it not? But I don't see how that would be possibly to draw as a conclusion using this rule.
On a side note, the similarities between Swedish and Germanic languages are really suprising.

>>11804701
the act of doing experiment physics is obviously different
but to get to the current level of knowledge, physics is really just mathematics, but you only look at specific parts of it, the areas you look at are the mathematics that the universe follows. Sometimes there are seemingly arbitrary constrictions, for example when looking at mullti particle wave functions, you only consider totally anti symmetric or symmetric wave functions (fermions and bosons), but mathematically other representations of the cyclical group would be possible. So physics is just mathematics, but what you only consider the stuff that manifests itself in nature.
some fields of mathematics are less used in physics but you would never know too much mathematics as a physicist.
So analysis real, 1d and multidimensional, complex, plus linear algebra is a must. the other topics you can pick up when you need them.

>After that you treat classical physics with the same formalism that you later apply to some extent in quantum mechanics
what I mean is you absolutely have to know the lagrangian or hamiltonian formalism, it would be didactically not very smart to only start using it with quantum mechancis. So I'd start with it in mechanics and electrodynamcis. You also do some statistical physics, classical first.

I havent read the books there (I'm german and read mostly german literature) but its a good idea to reiterate the same subject several tiems with different levels of depth.

>>11804742
>some fields of mathematics are less used in physics but you would never know too much mathematics as a physicist.
I'm planning on going into pure mathematics formally, but Physics is close enough application wise that I figure I should know quite a bit regarding it, along with it being fairly interesting. If I really end up enjoying it I may dual major, but I'm not sure.
>you absolutely have to know the lagrangian or hamiltonian formalism
I'll look into this before I start then, thanks

>>11804739
It depends completely on the order in which you do the cross multiplication. It is NOT commutative. Follow the long drawn out thing down to the left today and sleep on it and revisit.

(1,0,0) x (0,1,0) = (0,0,1)

(0,1,0) x (1,0,0) = (0,0,-1)

>a field is more complicated and useful so it must be inferior
go jerk off to your abstract concepts and try to figure out if 0.9999... equals 1 you fucking smooth brained retard that can't work with anything if there isn't a clean and straightforward formula. all the scientific achievements of the last 50 years were medical, chemical and engineering (the only respectable application of physics). physics faggots are still trying to make their impossible mental wankery work and still trying to break old physics laws that already work perfectly

>>11804756
I think I'm starting to understand a bit better. I'll do what you say and come back later to look over it.

>>11804771
>all I know are high energy theory memes: the post
Engineering and medicine are fine, but fuck off if you’re just interested in boosting your credibility by shitting on physics research. Condensed matter research groups regularly put out novel theoretical and applied work constantly but doesn’t get billed as the image of “physics research” because people people like NDT are interested in getting public funding for cosmology and high energy.

>>11801733
He's not wrong. You can do physics and math without memorizing anything at all. I got in A in my undergrad Quantum Mechanics and Abstract Algebra courses. Graduated Summa Cum Laude and I remember basically nothing about my classes.

>>11801501
you never studied organic chemistry, faggot

>w-what why isn't everything inaccurately simplistic like muh physics?? :((
when you want to model nature properly, this is what you get.

>>11801495
t. ochem 1 student

>>11801436
>Why does chemistry seem so inferior to physics?
You can't really understand the quantum mechanics of molecules without quantum mechanics but chemistry says you can.

I don't get this, doesn't physics end up making as little sense as chemistry on a pragmatic level? Or are we just ignoring quantum shit?

>>11806216
No it doesnt. No chemist ever said this. Try harder.

chemistry is not a science

physics is easier to understand because the concepts you learn in physics can esily be applied irl

>>11806264
Chemistry is better called "the quantum mechanics of molecules." When chemicals have interactions, it's due 100% to the quantum mechanics of the chemical molecules.

>>11806100
>incredibly simplistic like muh physics
how low iq do you have to be to post this?

>>11806614
If I was going to pick a random number above 200, I'd pick 276 but to be realistic I'd pick 222 because of trips.

>>11806506
okay retard

>>11804435
False.

Engineering is the fun uncle that makes drugs.

Chemistry is his fetal alcohol syndrome, down syndrome son.

>>11806674
engineering as we know it today would not exist without chemistry.

>>11806674
why are engineers so universally delusional? even CS majors think you're retards

chemistry felt like absolute fucking woo-woo bullshit until I realized it was all systems of linear equations and most every chemistry problem, from balancing equations to redox to Hess's law...

this is legit "the THING CHEMISTS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!" - all of it, their entire fucking field, boils down to reducing an augmented matrix

>>11806674

>Engineers make drugs lol ok undergrad

>>11801436
They intentionally teach it as obscurely as possible. Chances are you don't even understand what mole is. I never did after they forcefed me with that subject not of my interests for a couple of years and gave me my school diploma as if I knew some of it when in reality I only knew some of periodic table, but not even what the electro-something stuff is.
I was shocked when somebody told me that mole is just a number, just as gugol is, that avogadron number and mole is actually synonyms in a sense. And other details about it make me believe that they just don't want us to know chemistry (for some obvious reasons. true knowledge is true power)

>>11806877
most chemistry is explained by people who don't know mathematics, and without mathematics you can't understand numbers

>>11806768
Holy fuck. Imagine unironically thinking all of chemistry is linear algebra.

Fucking hell man. Haven't had that good a chuckle in awhile. Come back and comment after you take classes past intro chem.

>>11804709
You mistook it with physics

>>11806070
Or physical chemistry... or instrumental analysis...

>>11801436
Interesting OP, did you fail your organochem? Memorisation will get you to pass, but it won't make you a very good chemist.

>>11806768
Imagine passing intro chem, moving on to something else, thinking that that's all chemistry has to offer.

Good shit anon, keep it up.

>>11807120
Implying this entire thread wasn’t made by a first year who is in over his head.
You’ll find that engineering and physics majors, especially in early undergrad, make inaccurate value judgements on fields based on proximity to their own line of work - many of them aren’t aware of how interdisciplinary research or actual progress in the field actually is, so they subdivide themselves into the “smart ones”, the majors that are similar as “smart but misguided priorities” (eg math), and then the “everyone does your job better” majors (knowledge they have only passing or introductory understanding of).
I’m not a therapist, but I’m pretty sure it’s just a way to spare their ego of the fact they their work is far from being the only relevant work out there.

>>11806216
no it doesn't. the relevant part of quantum mechanics is the base of all chemistry. a chemist doesn't need to learn about wave-particle duality and subatomic particles because they are mostly irrelevant. same case with really all stem fields except math because it's the base of all stem fields.

there is some extremely powerful chemlet cope itt

>>11806890
So it seems to me you also have no real idea what mole is. No coplex math is needed tio understand it or anything in chemistry.

>>11806890
true for elementary school chemistry. basic undergrad chemistry needs a minimum of high school/undergrad level math, more advanced chemistry needs calculus and other math depending on the subject.

>>11801974
cope.

>>11804466
what uk uni u at?

What would you say about physical chemistry? It's nothing like memorization and is solely based off physical concepts

I really dont see much of a difference between chemistry and physics. If you can understand physics then you should understand chemistry. The math is just basic algebra, when you get to the point where you need to make derivatives or integrals of slopes it just looks the same as any physics class I took. Maybe youre a brainlet?

>>11802225
U don’t understand right hand rule? Jesus are you in high school?

>>11803792
What college do u go to lmao? Smoothbrain university?

>>11804466
Everybody hates chemists until grandma gets cancer and needs anti-cancer compounds made.

>>11804639
Plug and a value for sin(phi) and it's sign will tell you if it's up or down.

>>11803972
>>big eyes and mouths scary
No
>>monstrously distorted face scary
This

The life sciences and chemistry need to migrate to a board like /an/ or /out/ so we no longer have to translate our terminology into clicks and grunts.

Immediately upon our departure, /sci/ would look like it had suffered a stroke. The catalog would be a crumbling chamber of 0.999 and IQ threads mixed with ever more unintelligible shrieks calling and answering each other.

>>11803792
>grammar
>rhetoric
>the Holy Bible (King James Version)
lmao