/sci/ - Science & Math

like the study of physics , but instead of physics it's chemistry

It's the study of matter, and how it changes and reacts.

>>2028306
>>2028310
what good is it though?

for an average person like myself?

>>2028317

I find it less exciting than computer science.

>>2028317

Look around you. You're surrounded by materials. The glass of your monitor, the plastic of the keyboard. The treated wood, composites, laminates of your desk. The paint in your walls. The food in your kitchen with a long shelf life. Your prescription drugs. The bottle of Mt. Dew on your desk, with the Mt. Dew inside.

All of these things have been researched and developed by chemists for the purpose of improving your life.

Thank a chemist.

chemistry is the crossroads of all science

Not OP, but what's the difference between Physics and Chemistry?

>>2028332

>material science

It's just applied biology, nothing to see here.

>>2028332
meh, when you get to the PCB level it is more interesting
>>2028330
I agree I defiantly consider all of this, but I'm a hobbyist and I want a reason to mess with it, what are the legal aspects of it also, also, does it have anything to do with nano-engineering, if so it nano-engineering illegal?

The only reason I can think of learning chemistry it to make cool things regarding my electronics hobby.

I'm sure I can make cool things, but I just need more info on it to take interest

>>2028343
what kind of chemical process is required to make a circuit for a microprocessor inside the IC chip?

>>2028341

No, straight up chemistry.

I should know, I'm an R&D chemist working on consumer products.

>>2028340
You'll figure that out in highschool.

>>2028352
And not here?

It's basically the study of forms of matter, it's properties, and what elements make up the matter in question. Chemistry is a pretty broad subject these days and can vary from "potassium + water = boom"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFG4Yr7lQzw

to the study of proteins, their structure, composition, and likely role in alzheimer's disease.

>>2028364
so chemistry isn't definite because things are always tending to react depending on their properties, hmm sounds interesting, real eye opener thank you.

>>2028340

Physics is the study of motion, energy, forces, and while matter is studied in the sense of particles, it's not got to do really with the details of matter at the atomic and molecular level, and how it reacts. Although there are the subdisciplines of physical chemistry and molecular physics, etc. which span the division.

>>2028345

You make few sense, but I'll reply because I like replying.

When you learn computer science you'll be able to do ALOT of virtual cool things. I'm telling this you being a physics student. Actually, if I ever feel like I am going to fail I won't even bother and switch to CS instead.

>>2028356
You must alter the chemical composition of silicon by adding dopants. Some dopants bond with the silicon to produce regions where the dopant atoms have one electron they can give up. Other dopants bond with the silicon to produce regions where the dopant atoms have room to take one electron.

>>2028364
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg0RPr_ofZQ

chemistry is now socially acceptable within the general social construct.

>>2028356

I don't know precisely how its done these days, but the chemistry is incredibly complex.

It involves a great deal of metal chemistry, inorganic chemistry, quantum chemistry/physics, chemical deposition methods, chemical analysis to see what's going on at such a small scale, etc.

The problem that's constantly plaguing computer companies isn't designing new IC chips, the design is the easy part. It's coming up with new techniques for building them smaller and smaller.

>>2028384
ah ok, thank you.

and this dopant is applied to the silicon wafer in a pattern identical to a circuit?

>>2028399
I think they lack imagination.

>>2028419

In what respect, Charlie?

>>2028419
>>2028419
>>2028279
troll.

>>2028419
Science is not about imagination.
Thats art.
Sry, wrong board, go back to /mu/

>>2028455
>>2028445
not a troll, just saying they lack imagination to not come up with smaller chips

moore's law is only over if you don't have an imgination.

>>2028469
OH GOD YOU HAVE NO FACE

>>2028461
every invention was based on imagination stupid

>>2028419
mfw imagination

>>2028461

No, imagination is essential for science. It's how you develop new hypotheses.

But it's only the start.

I like to think of chemistry as the study of the behaviour of electrons. Where do they go, and what do they take with them?

>>2028463

There's no shortage of people imagining how to make smaller chips. It's not a case of Feynman's Plenty of Room at the Bottom. The problem is doing it in ways that actually work.

imagination =/= results

>>2028468
Imagination is not exactly same as creativity.
You are bound by the laws of physics, where imagination is used for literature and arts generally.

the sentence "chemistry lacks imagination" is not just wrong, it DOESNT MAKE SENSE.
Only scie skiddie would say that.

>>2028471

That's like 95% of chemistry.

>>2028463
"they lack imagination to not come up with smaller chips"
Imagination isn't going to overcome fundamental limits to the size of components. There's a point beyond which chips as they currently function (electricity) won't work.

>>2028478
imagination can lead to results so stop blowing it off.

imagination = possible science

>>2028470
see this:
>>2028482

>>2028498
imagination leads to creativity

that is a fact.

>>2028482

>imagination is not exactly the same as creativity.

Not exactly, no. But you can't be creative without having an imagination.

There's nothing contradictory about having a good imagination without being well versed in the laws of physics.

>>2028511
THIS!11!!!!!!11!!

imagination = theoretical physics = SCIENCE

>>2028520

prerequisite =/= =

>>2028511
>There's nothing contradictory about having a good imagination without being well versed in the laws of physics.
You're right, there's not. But what's the point of imagining new ideas if they physically can't work?

>>2028471
hmm good point thank you.

>>2028527
>pessimistic hypothetical scenario.

probably a troll

>>2028527

Who said anything about imagining ideas that can't physically work? I mean, besides that troll.

>>2028531
given that one has such prerequisites

>>2028537
There's not much point in having imagination without the knowledge of physics necessary to know whether your concepts are theoretically possible.

>>2028364
woah, how the fuck does that happen (2nd year college chem here)

is the attraction from K to O just stronger than from H to O?
so 2K + H2O -> K2O + H2?

>>2028575
Yes.

>>2028589
why is this the case? I don't see why one is more ionicly attracted than the other. is hydrogen just more stable independently?

>>2028610

Are you familiar with electronegativity?

>>2028575

2K + 2H2O ---> 2KOH + H2

>>2028629
what do the arrow represent in the chemistry notations?

>>2028637
this I was wondering the same thing

>>2028620
yeah, realized right after I said it that hydrogen gas is stable
>>2028637
it's kinda like an equal sign in math
2H + O -> H2O
would be read "2 hydrogen reacting with 1 oxygen results (or equals) water"

>>2028658
ah ok, wow that's really easy thank you.

it was explained either overly complicated in school or poorly, or both at the same time.

>>2028658
so + is the bonding aspect, and -> is the given result of said/such bonding(s)?

>>2028726
yeah, but unless you see something like <-- -->, the reaction only proceeds one way.

>>2028734

All reactions proceed in both directions. When you see the arrow going in just one direction, it means that direction occurs so predominately you can justifiably ignore the direction going in the other direction for most considerations.

>>2028734
what would this mean <- ->

can't a bonding only have one result?

>>2028658
>>2028734
>>2028726
>>2028721

Okay first of all:
+ means plus or add (lol)
---> means reacts (and becomes)

----> is always <----> because there is no such thing as a one-way-reaction.
Everything is in an equilibrium.

>>2028726

No, the "+" aspect means both reagents are involved in the reaction.

Basically, it means: "If you have potassium and water, you'll get potassium hydroxide and hydrogen.

>>2028763
>>2028763
After a while there isn't any net change between the reactants and the products. Example: Haber-Bosch process.

.

>>2028763
like anon above you said, every possible reaction underlies an equilibrium.

>>2028755
but that's including two steps implying they are one though isn't it? it would react once, that is one step.

>>2028755
That's not true. The <--> arrow does imply that there's equilibrium, but not all reactions are reversible / have an equilibrium. For instance, the enzyme peroxidase catalyzes the reaction
ROOR' + electron donor (2 e-) + 2H+ → ROH + R'OH
which is not reversible.

>>2028788

These reactions go back and forth billions of times a second.

The figures on either side of the equation signify the final results, with the arrow pointing to the side of the equation which is favored once equilibrium is reached.

>>2028791

The reaction is reversible, it's just so heavily favored it's called irreversible. You can ignore the back reaction for all practical consideration.

Aslo, keep in mind, enzymes are just catalysts. They don't effect the enthalpy of the reactants and products, or the equilibrium, only the activation energy, i.e. the rate.

>>2028788
what?

there are not only 2 molecules reacting, but moles of molecules, meaning billions (more really) of them.
so some of them are going to react and some of the new formed molecules are going to react back to become your reactant. most of the time the equilibirum lies on one side.

Sorry for bad english, germanfag here who doesnt want to think more than he has to.

>>2028791
yes, you are right. But I didn't want him to confront with enzymes just yet. That guy doesnt even know what chemistry means, give him a break.

>>2028820
ok thank you, I will take note of all of that
>>2028829
no problem Germanbro I understand, but why would they react back? also your english is perfect.

>>2028849
They react back because they can. This is a matter of energy. You see, every molecule wobbles, because of the energy it 'has' (what we feel as heat). and sometimes because of that wobbling the bond between two elements in a molecule breaks. That's why some of the new formed molecules react back. Sometimes its like a really really small amount which is reacting back and sometimes the equilibrium lies on the other side, that depends on many factors like temperature, pressure, the medium in which the reaction is taking place.

>>2028893
omfg I love you Germanbro thank you.

also, I hope you free your people and sorry about WW2

>>2028913
free my people? lol my people are free...
and .. you know... WW2 is like 60 years away... no hard feelings.