[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 360 KB, 1024x1024, FaceApp_1593294299045.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12043957 No.12043957 [Reply] [Original]

What's the worst science subject and why is it chemistry

>> No.12043961

>>12043957
Psychology

>> No.12043962

t. never took past undergrad chemistry

>> No.12043970

OP here. I'm trans btw

>> No.12043971

>>12043962
This shit is so backwards to me. My professor says shit needs to be rounded to X significant figures to be more accurate. Wouldn't more significant figures make it more accurate rather than less?

>> No.12043975

>>12043971
okay never mind you must be in high school still

>> No.12043983

>>12043975
Not necessarily, I'm in college and all science-related classes have a hard-on for sig figs.

>> No.12043990

numerology

>> No.12043997

>>12043983
I'll spell it out for you then.
Measure 50 grams of a substance with a scale accurate to ~1 gram and then 1 microgram of another substance with a scale accurate to 1 microgram. Add them together. How much total substance do you have?
Your knowledge of the total amount is only as good as your lowest-quality measurement, because your gram-accuracy scale implies your "50 grams" could actually be anywhere from 49.5-50.4 (or whatever the bounds are).
So if you add these two values together and say "I have 50.000001 total grams of substance" you're implying a much greater degree of precision in your measurement than you actually have.

>> No.12044004

>>12043971
>getting filtered by sig figs
modern /sci/, ladies and gentlemen

>> No.12044117

>>12043997
I'm not OP, I know how sig figs work

>> No.12044128

>>12043957
chem would be fine if it wasn't for the gay af wetlab shit.

>> No.12044142

>>12043957
>why is it chemistry
You tell me

>> No.12044403

>>12043990
not science

>> No.12044412

>>12043957
Chemistry is nice its like math but real

>> No.12044531
File: 39 KB, 466x349, 1595880131683.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12044531

>>12043971
>Wouldn't more significant figures make it more accurate rather than less?

>> No.12046030
File: 43 KB, 400x328, 1583464458035.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12046030

>>12043971
Only if those significant figures are actually justified, otherwise you're just representing noise as accurate data.

>> No.12046048

>>12043962
Undergrad che, fucking sucked and it was a horrid experience

>> No.12046058

>>12043971
>>12043975
>>12044004
>>12046030
sig figs are a retarded notion

>> No.12046197

>>12043971
based retard

>> No.12046218

>>12046058
You're a dumbass

>> No.12046225

>>12043971
THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF /SCI/

>> No.12046243

>>12046058
Measuring your dick with a ruler at 2.7373828374 inches is retarded

>> No.12046254

>>12046058
ok I'll bite
the measurement error in chemistry is relative
for example
if your result is 12.31337 mg/kg and the method error is 1%, it means means it's 12.3 +- 0.1 mg/kg
you can measure the same sample 3 times and get results like 12.36969, 12.31488 and 12.30420

2 significant numbers are enough for basic methods with STD~10%
3-4 significant numbers are typical for instrumental methods and skilled chemists
more than 4 significant numbers is usually just an idiot writing down whatever the calculator spits out at him

>> No.12046263

>>12043957
because you work with poison all day