/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9612278
Don't be a chemistry major, they thrive on this shit
physical chemistry has a framework, like the kinetics of reactions are pretty easy to deal with, the ideal gas law is a single equation. trends across the periodic table you can learn to reason out. (Although chemistry has this time-honored tradition of presenting mathematical models in really obtuse ways...) but shit like solubility you just have to memorize.

>>9612278
All intelligence is brute-forced, it becomes 'wisdom/knowledge' only upon some third-party consensus.

>>9612278
>math, physics
employ concepts, need to understand or else you get destroyed as you try to continue.
>chemistry
get destroyed if you try to understand because you should've spent that time memorizing.

>>9612307
Dumb

>>9612278
Switch to ChemPhys.

>>9612278
bump of sympathy

>>9612300
>Don't be a chemistry major, they thrive on this shit
>>9612412
>>chemistry
>get destroyed if you try to understand because you should've spent that time memorizing.
When you start taking real chemistry, there's a clear conceptual development for basically everything. This is the equivalent of judging mathematics on the basis of calc 1 ("what do you mean I have to memorize all these derivatives?")

>>9612697
I fucking doubt it

>>9612721
>I have to remember derivatives for calc 1, so all mathematics is autistic memorization
The /sci/ culture encourages people to realize that real math is argument and proof, not computation, but you're so eager to say all chemistry works the way your piddly intro class does without any real knowledge of what chemistry -is-
Genchem doesn't even involve that much memorization anyway. What even is there besides solubility rules that you have to learn by rote?

>>9612697
you're full of shit. the people who succeed in chem courses have loads of stuff memorized. pKas come to mind. I feel like anyone who thinks chem is straightforward and logical has never taken a serious physics class

>>9612278
Try doing nootropics

http://nootropicsdepot.com/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/01/2016-nootropics-survey-results/

I feel you. Currently taking analytical Chemistry, learning all these colours really fucks your brain.

>>9612848
I literally know no one who memorized all the pKa's. You learn how trends in atom structures lead to structural differences and as a result produce different reactions. All the dumbasses that try to get through Chemistry just using memorization get wrecked worse and worse as they have to take harder classes. The major tool for a chemistry class is being able to visualize how the system works despite never being able to see it.

>>9612278
Gen chem feels hard as fuck because it's babies first physical chemistry. Physical chemistry relies on statistical thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, both subjects beyond the scope of intro classes. Therefore you get a lot of information that seems to make little sense, you have to develop a framework that works for you. After you rationalize it you take another chemistry course and have to alter the way you view it because they teach you how some aspect of the framework was a lie because trying to intuit how statistical thermodynamics and quantum mechanics mesh is not simple.

tl;dr Chemistry is a series of lies that get slightly closer to the truth each iteration. Figure out which lies make sense to you, but don't grip them too tightly as they are subject to change.

>>9612848
>memorizing pKas

>>9613694
We actually had to d that for GenC. There was one part in the test where it would just give you a formular and xou had to write the pKs down. Obviously only common ones like HF, H2CO3, HAc, H2O, NH3, stuff like that. It gave only 5/100 points but 5 points are 5 points.

>>9612278
>Is there more to learning chemistry than brute force and memorization?

all sciences, all knowledge require some memorization

but if you're implying that chemistry is in fact memorization then you're just being an idiot

of course you're gonna have to memorize basic concepts in an INTRO CHEMISTRY COURSE you dumb cunt

once you get to physical chemistry and have thermodynamics or quantum mechanics you'll realize you were wrong

not only that when you get to organic chem 2, that is if you even pass organic 1, you will have to memorize reagents, but then you'll have to figure out mechanisms based on molecular orbital theory

my advice is stop complaining and learn the stuff

you're gonna wish you had to memorize once you get to group theory and building MO diagrams for complexes with pi donator/acceptors

>>9613758
That's silly. I would just give you a list and ask you to rank them
>>9613820
Even electron pushing is intuitive and rational. You realize later that it and the entire resonance form concept are just a stand in for the qualitative behavior or waves (Fleming's MOs book does this well) but you certainly don't need to in order to rationalize broad classes of reactivity

I found general chemistry to be easy as fuck. Just fucking practice.

>>9612278
Gen chem is boring in my experience there is not logical flow of information you go from on topic to a completely unrelated topic. The course is not linear at all. Although most gen chem is basic algebra so if you are good with math it should be a breeze just menorize the formulas. Organic chemistry is a lot more enjoyable imo. I loved organic. It just makes sense to me and it is much more linear. In all honesty if you understand the first 3 chapters of organic you should be able to ace both orgo 1 and 2.

>>9613156
>memorized all the pkas
strawman. I'm not saying pi to 100 digits, I'm saying relative magnitudes. so given a solvent you know roughly what's going to happen. this is a very useful skill in determining how an organic reaction will go.
also, biochemistry is extremely demanding of memory
>>9613944
if you thought this way about organic your class probably wasn't very difficult, IME

another relevant point: chemistry majors are typically terrible at physics

>>9613944
Gen chem is kind of a broad, shallow survey of some of the main ideas and elementary results from different areas of chemistry. It seems like it's more for nonmajors who need a practical understanding of things like equilibrium, acids, gasses, and descriptive periodic trends without much depth or rigor, and to my way of thinking it kind of shortchanges chemistry students and those who'd like to know what chemistry is all about.

>>9614042
>strawman
Figuring out the relative magnitudes of pka values based on structural features is -not- "memorizing pkas"

>>9614066
yeah but aometimes relative magnitude isn't apparent from structure. if you're comparing a solvent and a reagent that are structurally dissimilar, your qualitative methods are fucked. My upper division organic classes were filled with that stuff.

>>9613820
>pi donator/acceptors
I laughed

There is, indeed, a lot of memorization in the earlier classes as anons in this thread and you, obviously, can see.

That being said, there are some concepts that you can learn that aid in the processes required for memorization. Certainly, you could just remember that some multivalent transition metals form +2 ions fairly often OR you could learn some basic inorganic chemistry relating the relative electron probability densities of the atomic orbitals to which would be most sensitive to increased effective nuclear charge to rationalize WHY transition metals lose n+1 s orbital electrons and some n d orbital electrons to result in the observed oxidation states.

My explanation has two-fold purpose: firstly, I was flexing some chemical vocabulary knowledge that presents the idea that, yes, some drone memorization is often required (even though this is all very simple first week inorganic chemistry topics) but, secondly, that there are deeper lessons that can be granted through the memorization.

The jargon is a stepping-stone for new chemistry students to set a starting point wherein further learning can be built on this foundation.

In another vein, this method of teaching chemistry hearkens back to how the developments/discoveries in the field were made. Before quantum mechanics, there were the simpler notions of bonding models that earlier scientists, and new chemistry students alike, use to work towards the final, most accurate models chemists can now utilize.

I hope this inspires you as I am very passionate about my field of study.

>>9613820
Yeah I've seen the "group theory" you need for chemistry and it's fucking laughable.

>>9614510
It's the same kind you need for physics, so...
Of course your main courses for a BS won't involve a lengthy digression into abstract mathematics and proofs. But if you plan to go to graduate school for pchem, it'll be recommended to you.

>>9614761
>It's the same kind you need for physics
Yeah that is really not saying much.

>>9613820
>pi donor/acceptors
that the best you got, b?

>>9614975
>DFT

>>9612278
I don't get this. The weirdest and most innacurate misconception people have about organic chemistry is that it is all memorisation. It isn't: you're taught MO theory and a mechanistic model and then have to derive mechanisms and synthesis pathways from first principles.

As for inorganic and physical, they rely so heavily on maths that I can't see how they would just be memorisation.

>>9612697
You don't have to memorize shit in Calc I

>>9615921
Uh excuse me. I had to memorize how to draw that little squiggle they said was the "integral". More like "integral to my failure" ;(

>>9612412
>get destroyed if you try to understand because you should've spent that time memorizing.
Maybe for a brainlet. Understanding allows for generalization and expansion

>>9613820
Group theory isn't required for writing up a simple MO diagram for something like catalytic mechanisms. GT will only make the MOs more definite and integrate all components.

>>9615543
This. Stereoelectronic effects have taken me far.

I have legit autism and graduated with a B.Sc. in synthetic and catalytic chemistry

>>9615470
DFT has its applications. I've used it to computationally model donor-acceptor semi-conductive polymers